House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
The Government, of course, recognise that inflation is rising and are closely monitoring the situation together with the Bank of England. We are also putting in place policies to help families meet the rising cost of living, such as freezing duties, cutting the tax rate in universal credit and increasing the national living wage. Last month I announced to this House a £9 billion package of support to help households with rising energy bills.
Kim Johnson
The question was about what assessment has been made. The Resolution Foundation predicts that inflation will rise above 8% but benefits will increase by only 3%. Liverpool has some of the most deprived communities in this country, with 33% of children in my Riverside constituency suffering poverty. Does the Chancellor believe that now is not the time to increase national insurance contributions while the cost of living is increasing, forcing people into poverty at the highest level since the 1970s? Will he commit to putting measures in place in the spring statement?
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Lady talks about children in poverty, and I am pleased that there are now 300,000 fewer children in poverty than in 2010 thanks to the actions of Conservative-led Governments. We all know that the best way to ensure the children do not grow up in poverty is to ensure that they grow up in a house where people work, and that is why I was delighted this morning to learn that there are record numbers of people on payroll.
Gerald Jones
Citizens Advice has told me that one in six people in my constituency of Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney are unable to pay their energy bills right now, and that is before they spike next month and before the Chancellor’s national insurance hike. Some 86% of people said that they did not think that the October energy loan scheme would make a difference in helping to pay their bills. The conflict in Ukraine will inevitably lead to a further surge in energy prices, so if he will not accept Labour’s suggestion of a windfall tax on oil and gas producers, what exactly will the Chancellor do now to relieve the pressures on people in my constituency and across the country?
Rishi Sunak
We are putting in place support to help households meet the rising cost of energy bills, and £9 billion of support will help to ensure that four out of five households in England will receive £150 starting this April, with a further £200 of support towards the autumn. Of course, councils have been given extra money for discretionary funding to help households in need as well.
Ms Rimmer
Since the Chancellor announced his household loan scheme in response to the energy crisis as well as a huge rise in national insurance, the world has changed. Other Departments have adapted to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. When will the Treasury?
Rishi Sunak
With regard to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Treasury has been hard at work with our international partners to put in place the most comprehensive set of economic sanctions that this country has ever had and that Russia has ever experienced. I am very proud of the job we have done.
Steve McCabe
If the Chancellor had appreciated last autumn the extent to which energy costs and other household bills would rise, would he still have advocated a national insurance rise?
Rishi Sunak
We have reacted to rising energy bills by putting in place £9 billion of support, which will get to households far faster than the proposals put forward by the Opposition, with the £150 reaching four out of five households just this April when the price cap goes up. It is also worth bearing it in mind that, because of the price cap, households will be protected from further increases all the way through to the autumn.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
The cost of fuel is now an eye-watering £2 a litre in some areas, which has led to a huge VAT windfall for the Treasury. When the Chancellor thinks about his spring statement, will he look not just at cutting fuel duty but at mileage recovery rates? They have been at 45p a mile for more than a decade. Now is the time to put them up to 60p at least.
Rishi Sunak
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his suggestions, and of course I will bear them in mind. He is right about the rising cost of fuel at the pumps, although I am pleased to see that over the last few days, the price of Brent has fallen by about 25%, illustrating the volatility of the situation.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
The cost of living is biting hard in Brecon and Radnorshire. Heating oil is eye-wateringly expensive and extremely hard to come by, while a local haulage firm in Llandrindod Wells is coughing up an extra £60,000 per month on diesel. It is wrong to assume that those who live in rural areas are wealthy enough to withstand these pressures, so can my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that he has them in mind as he considers all the options available to him?
Rishi Sunak
I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. Representing as I do a rural constituency like hers, I know the difficulty that our constituents are facing. That is why our £9 billion package of support for energy that I announced earlier is done by electricity meter, ensuring that those who are off the gas grid also benefit.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
The impact on energy prices of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the sanctions will inevitably mean that Britain is poorer. There is nothing that we can do about that overall, but we can help to smooth the impact. I welcome the announcement this morning that there are 275,000 extra people on payroll. What more can the Chancellor do to improve companies’ ability to hire workers and to enable people to keep more of their own money; for example, through the reduction in the taper rate on universal credit?
Rishi Sunak
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his typically thoughtful question. He is absolutely right about the circumstances we face. The data this morning shows record numbers of people on payroll, and that is to be welcomed. Indeed, the unemployment rate is now back to the levels we saw before the pandemic, thanks to our plan for jobs. There are record vacancies, and we want to get people into work. The best way to do that is to give them the skills they need and cut taxes to increase incentives. That is exactly what this Government are doing, and I expect us to make more progress in the months ahead.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
With council tax being one of the biggest items in household budgets, could the Chancellor remind the House which party tends to be the best, in a local council, for setting council tax?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend makes an excellent and timely point. She knows that I know that, in this country, if people want good local services delivered for the lowest possible council tax, they need to vote Conservative.
Mr Speaker
You should not make the Chancellor blush.
I call the shadow Minister, Pat McFadden.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The package on energy announced by the Chancellor last month has already been rendered obsolete by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Some estimates of average annual household energy bills suggest that there will be rises to £3,000 or even more from October. That is a ruinous figure for many of our constituents. Will the Chancellor revisit this support package in next week’s spring statement, and will he reconsider his refusal to fund help for hard-pressed households through a windfall tax on the enormous profits that oil and gas companies are making?
Rishi Sunak
It is worth bearing it in mind that, because of the price cap, households will be protected all the way through the autumn. We do not know what the price cap will be at that point. If the right hon. Gentleman knows, he is probably in the wrong line of business, and it would be good if he could tell the rest of us. Regarding a windfall tax, Conservative Members believe in getting more investment into the North sea and exploiting our domestic resources. The roundtable that my right hon. Friends the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Prime Minister and the Business Secretary hosted yesterday showed that there is enormous appetite to invest more in the UK. A windfall tax would put off that investment.
Mr McFadden
Of course, there are global factors driving up energy prices and inflation in many countries, but what singles out the UK is this Government’s decision to impose a tax rise on working people right when the impact of rising energy bills is hitting people the hardest. Why are the Government so determined to make the cost of living crisis worse now with these tax rises, particularly when the Treasury is briefing anyone—including the Government’s own Back Benchers—who will listen that the Tory party is planning pre-election tax cuts?
Rishi Sunak
The right hon. Gentleman talks about exceptionalism with regard to policy. Part of the reason we are in this situation with energy prices is the decisions made by the previous Labour Government, in particular on nuclear energy, which we are now rapidly having to make up for. We are also committed to tackling the unprecedented backlogs in the NHS, getting the waiting lists down, and recovering from covid. Every single penny of the health and social care levy will go to the people’s No. 1 priority and, although things are difficult, I know that is what people want to happen.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I represent an area in Cornwall where a large number of people are on the state pension. I know, from conversations that I have had with the Chancellor, that he is particularly concerned about that demographic. Given the critical rise in the cost of living, I wonder whether one of the easier routes to address it would be to reinstate the triple lock for next year.
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is right to highlight pensioners and to support them in the way that he does. He will know that we made a decision temporarily to move to a double lock this year because of the anomaly in the reported earnings, which would have meant a very large rise statistically that would not have been justified or fair in the circumstances. That said, I am pleased to say that pensions are now at their highest level relative to earnings in over three decades because of the Government’s policy on the triple lock, and we continue to be the party that will support those who need our help.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Sanctions against Putin’s regime are absolutely necessary, but they will add an extra layer of economic harm on top of the existing Tory cost of living crisis. The Chancellor must use the upcoming spring statement to deliver an emergency package of support to householders and businesses, whose costs have spiralled out of control. Will he turn his buy now, pay later energy loan into a grant, reinstate the universal credit uplift, increase other benefits with inflation and scrap the VAT and national insurance hike that will damage so many people?
Rishi Sunak
What we are doing is tackling the cost of energy. Unlike the hon. Lady’s party, we believe in the future of the North sea and we are investing in it. We want to make sure that we promote the jobs that are there. On upcoming support for energy costs, the Scottish Government have plenty of powers on welfare and tax, and if they think that they can make a difference, they should use them.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)
Some 130,000 young people across Great Britain have benefited from the kickstart scheme so far, including in my hon. Friends’ constituencies. That is lower than the 250,000 jobs that the scheme could have funded, but the scheme was designed at a time when unemployment was expected to peak at 12%. The reality is that, thanks to the intervention by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, the economy has recovered better than expected and unemployment peaked at 5.2% in 2020.
Andy Carter
I am grateful for that response. Last week, I went to visit Sigma, a great local business in Warrington South, which has employed nine people under kickstart, and that has made a massive difference. Can my right hon. Friend tell me what steps the Government are taking to help businesses retain young people as we approach the end of the six-month kickstart programme?
Mr Clarke
It is great to hear about my hon. Friend’s visit to Sigma, and I know that 180 kickstart jobs have been created in his constituency as of December. For those on universal credit who do not immediately continue into full-time unsubsidised work, support will continue to be available from the young person’s work coach to help them use their newly gained skills, and support will also be available from the wider DWP youth offer.
Cherilyn Mackrory
Last week I visited the jobcentre in Truro where they told me that kickstart has been a huge success. We have had around 620 kickstarters across Cornwall, providing urgently needed jobs for our young people. Given that the scheme will end this month, can my right hon. Friend expand on what the Department will do to support skills and apprenticeships, particularly for young people across Cornwall, so that we can be at the heart of the levelling-up agenda?
Mr Clarke
Spreading opportunity by levelling up our skills base is at the heart of our wider levelling-up White Paper—it is one of the core missions that it sets out. The Government will invest £3.8 billion in skills by 2024-25, which is equivalent to a cash increase of 42% compared with 2019-20. On apprenticeships, I am happy to say that last year more than 3,000 people started apprenticeships in my hon. Friend’s county of Cornwall. We want to see that work continue.
Henry Smith
Over recent months, many young people in Crawley have benefited from the kickstart scheme. In contrast to every Labour Government, which have all left office with unemployment higher than when they started, does my right hon. Friend agree that the way to recovery for our economy and the cost of living is the multi-billion pound plan for jobs that the Government are delivering?
Mr Clarke
My hon. Friend is right about the Government’s record on employment, just as he is right about the Labour party’s record on unemployment. To continue to boost employment, wages and living standards, he rightly references our plan for jobs, which is proving to be an enormous success. In total, the Department for Work and Pensions spend on labour market support will be more than £6 billion over the next three years.
Dr Davies
I recently visited the Dyserth Falls holiday park in my constituency, which is under renovation, to speak with some of the 40 members of the public who have been employed there under the kickstart scheme. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating all those who have taken part in the scheme, especially those who have been given permanent jobs, and set out what ongoing support there will be for those who have completed their placements?
Mr Clarke
As my hon. Friend knows, I know Dyserth very well. In fact, I will be there the weekend after next. I join him in congratulating all those who have taken part in the kickstart scheme, especially those who have secured full-time jobs. Kickstart is, of course, only one part of the wider package of support for young people that is under way. The DWP’s youth offer, which runs until 2025 and is worth £60 million, includes a 13-week youth employment programme, supported youth hubs and, crucially, specialised youth employability coaches.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Just in case colleagues in the House did not quite hear the Chief Secretary, he admitted that kickstart has failed. It promised young people 250,000 jobs and got barely half of that. But it is worse than that. The National Audit Office said about kickstart that there was
“limited assurance over the quality of the work placements created by the scheme, or whether jobs created by employers would have existed anyway”.
So in relation to the failed kickstart scheme, what does the Chief Secretary make of the following economic expression: “dead weight loss”?
Mr Clarke
With respect to the hon. Lady, of whom I am a great admirer, that is an unfair characterisation of the success of the scheme. It clearly needs to be situated in the wider context. In fact, the British economy has performed much better than anyone expected when the scheme was set up. There are robust processes in place that make sure that we genuinely are adding additional value. So work coaches have to certify that the people on the scheme are eligible for it and would have been unlikely to find work without it. Employers need to demonstrate how the jobs created are additional. Finally, it is important to contrast this scheme with the last Labour Government’s future jobs fund, which reached its total far more slowly and was far less effective. This scheme has got 130,000 and rising young people into work. It has been a great success.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
It is interesting that the Minister can call kickstart such a resounding success, given that last month the Public Accounts Committee said that the Department that runs the scheme does not know what success looks like because it launched the scheme without any idea as to what the success criteria would be. It also has no way of knowing whether the young people who are referred to kickstart jobs are the right young people and it is not properly evaluating the longer term support that employers give to those young people. Does the Minister agree with the PAC report, which was endorsed by a Committee consisting of a majority of Conservative MPs?
Mr Clarke
No, I do not agree with that report. It is an unfair characterisation of a response that was put in place at pace to meet an unprecedented crisis in our employment market. The wider success of our policy on youth employment is best measured by the fact that in January there were 500,000 more employees aged under 25 than there were in January 2021. The kickstart programme has played its full part in helping to make that possible.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Businesses in the steel industry are more likely to be able to support the kickstart scheme if the Government manage to get Donald Trump’s unfair tariffs of 25% on British steel exports lifted, as the Japanese and the EU have already achieved. Has the Chancellor spoken to the Chief Secretary about this issue, and if not why not?
Mr Clarke
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point about tariffs. Obviously, the Government believe in free trade and it is something that we want to see happen too. As a Member of Parliament who represents a steel-making constituency, I am keenly aware of this as an issue. The Department for International Trade leads on the issue, and I know that the Secretary of State and her predecessor have had long and ongoing conversations with their American counterparts about getting those tariffs lifted.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
With the scheme failing to attract the numbers that were predicted by over 80,000, will the Minister outline what structure is in place to attract those who have lost out, to ensure that those young people have opportunities to find a life career? Will the new scheme be UK-wide?
Mr Clarke
Youth unemployment is lower today than it was pre-pandemic, and the wider success of the scheme has to be judged in the context that the worst-case scenario that we were looking to offset never came to pass because of the interventions that we made. If a scheme does not achieve the headline numbers that were anticipated at the time it was established because the wider economic performance of the country was so much better than anticipated, that is a success, not something to bemoan.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Helen Whately)
Gambling contributes over £3 billion per annum to the Exchequer. The Government keep gambling duties under regular review to ensure that the sector continues to pay its fair share. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is reviewing the Gambling Act 2005, after which the Government will assess the impact of any reforms on the Exchequer.
Carolyn Harris
Analysis carried out by both NERA Economic Consulting and Landman Economics concluded that, given that online gambling is “labour intensive” and predominantly based offshore in avoidance of UK corporation tax, its net impact on the British economy is negative, particularly once the direct cost to Government, estimated by Public Health England to be £647 million, is factored in. Will the Government support the upcoming reviews of gambling regulation—the Minister said it is under active consideration—and welcome any moves to reduce gambling harm and the associated cost to society and the economy?
Helen Whately
I know that the hon. Lady is a committed campaigner on gambling as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on gambling related harm. Specific to her point about offshore gambling operators, I am sure that she knows that since 2014 gambling duties have been taxed on a “place of consumption” basis, so offshore operators pay taxes on profits related to UK gambling.
To the broader point of the gambling review, I spoke to the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who is leading DCMS’s work on gambling, just yesterday, and I assure the hon. Lady that the Government stand ready to take action where there is evidence that vulnerable people, such as those suffering from gambling addictions, are being exploited by gambling operators.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
The term “gambling” covers a broad spectrum of activities. Does the Minister share my concerns that over-zealous regulation of the gambling industry as a whole could lead to some damaging unintended consequences, such as driving vulnerable individuals to the black market, which is completely unregulated, loss of revenue to the Exchequer and damage to the greyhound and horse-racing industries, which employ lots of people?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is the basic principle that people should in general be free to spend their money as they see fit. There are about 100,000 jobs in the gambling industry in this country. It is important to ensure that we protect people who are most vulnerable from exploitation, and I know that the gambling review I mentioned is looking carefully at the best way to do that.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)
Details of ministerial discussions are not normally disclosed. Treasury Ministers have meetings with a wide variety of organisations in the public and private sectors as part of the process of policy development. From April, universal credit and many other benefits will be uprated by 3.1%, the rate of the consumer prices index in September 2021. In addition, the Government are providing support worth over £20 billion across this financial year and next to help families with the cost of living.
Stephen Farry
Millions of families across the UK, both in and out of work, depend on universal credit and other benefits. As the Minister knows, the 3.1% uprate was set in September. We are now seeing inflation of over 7%. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Trussell Trust and many other organisations highlight the real jeopardy that families are now facing. They have no plan B. Indeed, families are facing cuts in real terms of over £500 over the course of the year. Surely that decision has to be reassessed in the light of changing circumstances.
Lucy Frazer
CPI has been the default inflation measure for the Government’s statutory annual review of benefits since 2011, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but we are fully aware of the impact on households of the cost of living. That is why we are providing £20 billion of support, whether that is through £9 billion of support to help with rising energy bills or through universal credit. As he also knows, we have cut the taper rate so that families can keep an additional £1,000 annually in their pockets.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Does the Minister think that the uplift coming next month will be enough to get people all the way through next winter? If she recognises that there is a problem, will the Government consider bringing forward next April’s increase to this autumn, to give people a bit more money to help with their heating and food bills next winter?
Lucy Frazer
As my hon. Friend knows, we have introduced a range of measures to support families, both working and not working. The price of energy is now set until the autumn, and a significant amount of money is going in now and in the autumn.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)
Work is the best route out of poverty. We are investing more than £6 billion in labour market support over the next three years to help people to move into and progress in work. In addition, analysis published at the last autumn Budget shows that in 2024-25, tax, welfare and spending decision since the 2019 spending review will have benefited the poorest households the most as a percentage of income.
Bill Esterson
But real wages are falling by the largest amount since 2014, inflation is set to hit 8% and the energy price cap is going up. In the cause of fairness and sound economics, when will the Financial Secretary and her colleagues admit that it makes sense to use the record profits of North sea oil and gas to help ordinary people, who face a cost of living crisis?
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Gentleman knows from the statistics announced this morning that wages are up in real terms compared with pre-pandemic levels. In fact, unemployment is now almost back to pre-pandemic levels, and is lower than in Canada, France, Italy, Spain and Australia. On his specific question, the North sea oil industry already contributes additional taxes through a 40% rate, which is double the amount that other corporations pay.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
My constituency has one of the lowest rates of gross value added in the UK and is desperately in need of jobs and investment. The island is known as “energy island” because we have wind, waves, solar, tidal and—hopefully—nuclear. I was delighted to hear the Chancellor mention nuclear and the fact that he has committed to the £120 million future nuclear enabling fund, but will he also commit to publishing the criteria and bidding process, so we can move at pace in this vital sector?
Lucy Frazer
It is great to see the good work going on in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Of course, her question is for our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, who I am sure is considering it carefully.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)
People are rightly angry that fraudsters stole from covid support schemes, as am I. When the schemes were launched, there was cross-party consensus that we needed speed to protect jobs, and because of our action unemployment peaked at 5.2%, not the 12% predicted at the start of the pandemic. We designed the schemes to prevent as much fraud as possible, and lenders stopped nearly £2.2 billion of potential fraud from the bounce back loan schemes. We continue to take action on multiple fronts to recover money that was claimed fraudulently.
Nia Griffith
It is not just a matter of fraud; it is a matter of incompetence as well. The National Audit Office has been scathing about the UK’s wasteful spending of £37 billion on private contractors to deliver the test and trace system in England, while we in Wales had a more efficient system through partnership with the Welsh Government and local councils. What guidance is the Chief Secretary giving Departments on how to avoid giving such wasteful contracts in the future? Does the guidance include considering, wherever practicable, the delivery of service contracts through public authorities, where any profit remains in the public purse?
Mr Clarke
We always continue to encourage best value, and this is at the heart of all Treasury documents on the use of public money. On the hon. Lady’s point about test and trace, it is very important to reaffirm that the great majority of the costs associated with this scheme were about testing as opposed to tracing, and it was only that scheme that allowed us to come through the enormous challenges of the period, particularly prior to the availability of the vaccine, in a way that allowed our society and our wider economy to keep going to the extent that they could.
Lucy Allan
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been incredibly agile in responding to exceptional crises. As he tackles the impact of Putin’s war on our economy, will the Minister take every measure to accelerate growth, including reducing taxes on fuel and energy?
Mr Clarke
As has been discussed earlier in this session, as my hon. Friend rightly highlights, the Government recognise that households do need support with the rising cost of energy. Indeed, the Chancellor has already provided support worth some £9.1 billion for the financial year 2022-23. On her wider point about boosting growth, the Chancellor outlined in his Mais lecture the importance of the Government investing in capital, people and ideas, so that we can strengthen the economy and make sure that the UK is best placed to succeed in what is a challenging set of circumstances.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
Just in the last seven days, we have learned that 7 billion items of personal protective equipment were not fit for purpose, the Government are burning 500 lorryloads of it a month and former Treasury Minister Lord Agnew admitted that the lack of anti-fraud measures in the Government’s covid business support packages meant it was
“happy days if you were a crook”.
When billions of pounds of public money have been lost through the Chancellor’s incompetence, is the Minister ashamed to be hiking taxes on working people by billions of pounds next month?
Mr Clarke
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the situation in regard to PPE. Over 97% of the stock that was ordered was suitable for use. Indeed, when it comes to the wider figure covering the PPE piece, £4.7 billion of that represents PPE that will be used by the NHS, but which was procured at a greater price than it carries today owing to the scarcity that prevailed at that time, and another £3.3 billion represents PPE that can be used in non-medical settings, and the Department of Health and Social Care has already sold and donated stock in this category.
On the wider fraud point, this goes back to my earlier answer that we had to design these schemes at pace to protect jobs—I think this was agreed across the House—and we rightly, I think, made sure that that was the priority. We then built in the protections that were needed, and the protections have made sure that we are able to pursue anyone who has defrauded the taxpayer.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Lord Agnew’s evidence to the Treasury Committee last week was a damning indictment of this Tory Government’s “terrible complacency”—his words—about fraud and protecting public money, and he does not buy what the Minister says about working at pace either. Lord Agnew anticipates that there will be an “avalanche of claims” from the banks on the state guarantee of the bounce back loan scheme arriving at the Treasury in the coming weeks, so can the Minister tell the House what actions he is taking to prevent yet further billions of public money from waltzing out the door in the midst of a cost of living crisis?
Mr Clarke
On the hon. Lady’s point, the Government set up the £100 million taxpayer protection taskforce at the Budget back in March 2021, and that taskforce is expected to recover between £800 million and £1 billion from fraudulent or incorrect payments over the next two years. That builds on the work that has already been done, which saw Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs recover £536 million in 2020-21. Other agencies of the state are also involved in this important work. The National Crime Agency has made 17 arrests, 106 directors have been disqualified as of February 2022, there have been 48 bankruptcy restrictions and 13 companies have been wound up in the public interest in relation to bounce back loans.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Helen Whately)
At last autumn’s Budget and spending review, we announced a comprehensive package of investment to level up the UK and encourage regional growth. This included the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund, the £2.6 billion shared prosperity fund and £1.6 billion of investment in the next generation of the British Business Bank’s regional investment fund.
Damien Moore
Does my hon. Friend agree that town deals are one of the most progressive ways of supporting regional growth, and that the one for Southport will kick-start our economy locally?
Helen Whately
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his hard work to secure the £37.5 million town deal for Southport, which will be truly transformative for his constituents. That funding will bring in more private investment to his constituency, building on public funding and providing new jobs and opportunities for his constituents. It will be levelling up in action.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
The stark reality in the north-east is that we have seen rising child poverty and reliance on food banks in recent years, and the poorest households lost £1,000 when the Government cut universal credit in the autumn. Rising prices look set to take away another £1,000 from households, before the economic impact of what is happening in Ukraine. Ahead of the spending statement next week, may I urge the Treasury please to do more to tackle the destitution that will be inevitable if nothing is done to intervene to support households in the north-east, who will then support the local economy to grow?
Helen Whately
As other Ministers have outlined, we are supporting households with the rising cost of living, including a package worth £21 billion of support. In particular we are supporting those on universal credit by reducing the taper rate to ensure that work pays. Looking further ahead, through our commitment to levelling up we are investing across the country in skills and infrastructure, with the levelling-up fund to improve growth, boost prosperity, opportunities and pay, and thereby improve people’s standard of living.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
The Minister will be aware of the positive contribution that financial services can make to levelling up all over the country. With that in mind, and with the work of my all-party group on financial markets and services on levelling up, will she commit that the Treasury will work with the industry to spread opportunity within the financial services sector, to help that sector spread opportunity through all regions of this country?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I know he is knowledgeable about this sector. It is important to remember that financial services are to the benefit of the whole country, with two thirds of jobs in financial services being outside London and the south-east. Financial services are absolutely an important part of our ambitions for levelling up.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
In rural communities, especially Cumbria, we are deeply concerned about the Government’s apparent lack of concern about growth in the rural parts of this country. Is the Minister aware of the enormous damage being done to farming in the UK, just at the moment when we need our farmers the most, by the reduction in basic payments? That started in December when farmers lost between 5% and 25% of their basic payment, without any availability of anything to replace it for years to come. Will she intervene now to keep basic payments where they currently are, so that we can keep Britain farming?
Helen Whately
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I also represent a rural constituency with significant agricultural interest, and I assure him that we have protected agricultural funding through this Parliament. We are committed to levelling up across all parts of the UK, in rural as well as urban areas.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
What steps is the Minister taking with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to ensure that areas that need levelling up are able to attract private sector investment?
Helen Whately
That is a very important point. Levelling up is not just about public sector investment—indeed, the lion’s share of investment in future growth in our economy will come from the private sector. One important thing that the British Business Bank is doing with its regional fund is crowding in private sector investment, so that we will get more private sector investment on top of the public sector investment we are putting in.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
The shared prosperity fund could be one of the Government’s most effective means of encouraging regional growth across the UK, but only if the investment goes where it is most needed. Does the Minister believe that the Treasury should apply the funding commitments that were rightly made to Cornwall also to the Tees Valley as well as to South Yorkshire?
Helen Whately
We are making a substantial investment through the shared prosperity fund and other funds across the country. We have committed to ensuring that the shared prosperity fund will be at least as much as parts of the country received before through EU funding, and I am committed to the hon. Gentleman’s area just as much as to Cornwall and other parts of the UK.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Helen Whately)
By investing in local infrastructure, the levelling-up fund will strengthen local economies, boost job opportunities and improve the day-to-day lives of people across the UK. So far, we have committed £1.7 billion to 105 projects, and at the end of the month the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will publish its monitoring and evaluation strategy for the funding.
Peter Gibson
With £23.3 million invested through the towns fund, £105 million for Bank Top station and 1,700 civil service jobs coming to Darlington, we are a leading example of how the Government’s levelling-up agenda is benefiting communities in the north-east. The second round of the levelling-up fund will continue that work. Will my hon. Friend outline the timescales for the delivery of that round?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend is a fabulous campaigner for Darlington, as evidenced in all the funding that his local town has secured. I am a regular visitor to Darlington, as are my Treasury colleagues, and have seen those investments already making a difference. He asks about the second round of the levelling-up fund. It will open for business this spring, with further details to be published shortly.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
We continue to review and reform our regulatory and enforcement approach to ensure that, as illicit finance evolves, our responses do too. We have announced an unprecedented package of sanctions, including against prominent Russian oligarchs. Last night, we brought forward the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 to crack down further, and we will continue to do further work on the economic crime Bill in the next session. We have also brought a new kleptocracy cell into the National Crime Agency to tackle those explicit threats.
Mr Bradshaw
But it took a group of anarchists to seize Deripaska’s London mansion yesterday, so when will the Minister do what Europe and America have already done and seize rather than just freeze Putin’s cronies’ assets? When will he close the loopholes that still allow them to escape sanction by putting their assets in their family members’ names or using shell companies based in British overseas territories?
John Glen
The Government have worked closely with the US and the EU on a whole range of interventions. We have sanctioned 500 individuals and entities, including 386 members of the Russian state Duma. We have also worked with the US on the expulsion of banks from the SWIFT banking system, cut off 3 million Russian companies from capital markets and seen $250 billion wiped of Russian stocks. We will continue to work closely with our allies to ensure that our response continues to be comprehensive.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
The Government have once again delayed the long-overdue reforms to Companies House that could have deterred illicit finance, prevented covid fraud and provided vital information to the authorities. I will ask the Minister an important question, and I want him to update the House accurately. How many Russian-linked individuals and businesses have been wrongly given Treasury-backed covid-related business support?
John Glen
We worked to give widespread support to lots of individuals across the economy. I cannot give the hon. Lady the exact chapter and verse on individuals who have been supported, but we will continue to work on Companies House reform, which will be the most significant reform of the companies register in 170 years, and later this year we will publish a second economic crime plan and fraud action plan to address the threats that we continue to see.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
In response to Russia’s unprovoked aggression against Ukraine, the Treasury has helped deliver a world-leading package of economic sanctions to deliver severe consequences to the Russian economy. Across insurance, finance, trade, public and private capital markets, clearing, SWIFT, central bank assets and, indeed, bank asset freezes, we are ensuring that the Government play a leading role in making sure that Putin’s aggression does not go unpunished.
Marsha De Cordova
Families in my constituency are facing the cost of living crisis, and the planned real-terms cut to social security will force more of them into poverty and into having to make impossible decisions between eating and heating their home. According to the Trussell Trust, one in three on universal credit were not able to dress for the weather last month as they could not afford appropriate clothing or shoes. That is unacceptable. Will the Chancellor increase the level of social security support in his spring statement next week to alleviate some of the worst impacts of the cost of living crisis?
Rishi Sunak
As is common to all other years, welfare is uprated annually by September’s CPI. That will be the case next year as well, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary laid out. For those on universal credit we have cut the tax rate to ensure that work pays, delivering a £2 billion tax cut to 2 million on low incomes—the best route out of poverty.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance of fuel as a cost for both businesses and households. That is why I am proud that we delivered the eleventh freeze in fuel duty in a row. That has delivered huge savings for households and businesses over the past several years.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
Millions of people are worried sick about soaring bills. Meanwhile, BP says it has more cash than it knows what to do with and has compared its record profits from inflated prices to a cash machine. Those profits are not being used to fund new investment. They are going on dividends and share buybacks, so why will the Chancellor not make North sea oil and gas companies pay their fair share of taxes to tackle the enormous cost of living crisis?
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Lady talks about a fair share. It is worth bearing in mind that oil and gas companies are already taxed at double the rate of all other companies: 40% versus 19%, currently. Last year saw the lowest amount of investment in the North sea on record—just a few billion pounds. As my right hon. Friends who were at the roundtable yesterday know, there are billions of pounds of projects waiting to be unlocked. We want that investment and those jobs here in the UK.
Rachel Reeves
That is not happening with the share buybacks. The Chancellor is totally out of touch. He does not seem to understand how the cost of living crisis is affecting the least well off in society, as campaigner Jack Monroe highlighted. The Institute for Fiscal Studies confirmed that the poorest households face an inflation rate 50% higher than the richest households. The Resolution Foundation warns that between 2020 and 2022, 700,000 more children will have fallen into poverty. That is devastating, but it is not inevitable. The Chancellor can and must do more in the spring statement to provide people with real help, not just a loan. Why is he so intent on shielding oil executives, instead of protecting the poorest in society?
Rishi Sunak
The best way to help people cope with rising energy costs and bills over time is to make sure we have a diversified and secure supply of energy, more of which comes from here at home. I share the hon. Lady’s concern for those on the lowest incomes. I am proud that all the evidence points to the fact that the decisions made by this Government over the last few years have benefited those on the lowest incomes the most. We have protected those who need our help, and we will continue to do so.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)
It was very interesting to meet my hon. Friend, together with his colleagues from the all-party parliamentary group on investment fraud, and to hear his idea. As we discussed, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is very keen to make clear which schemes do not work. That is why, in the Finance Act 2022, the Government legislated to allow HMRC to name promoters and the schemes they promote at the earliest possible stage, to warn taxpayers of the risk of entering into those schemes, and to help those already involved to exit avoidance.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Rishi Sunak
We are spending record amounts on supporting those who are disabled. Relative to the OECD, I think we are spending in excess of the average for other leading countries. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has a particular programme of support in place to help those who are disabled to move into employment; plans were announced earlier this year.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
Lucy Frazer
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the effect of a high effective tax rate on incentives to work. That is why the Government reduced the universal credit taper rate from 63% to 55% and increased the universal credit work allowance by £500 per year, which is essentially a tax cut for the lowest-paid, worth more than £2 billion in 2022-23, and means that 1.9 million households will keep an extra £1,000 per year on average.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Helen Whately)
The changes to the taxation of red diesel were announced back in 2020, were confirmed in spring 2021 and are coming in this year, so businesses, including in the sector that the hon. Member refers to, have had plenty of time to prepare. It is absolutely right that we tax fuels that are highly polluting; unfortunately, diesel is one of them.
Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con)
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend is an active campaigner for the steel sector in her constituency. I can assure her that energy-intensive industries such as steel receive substantial support from the Government, including free allowances from the emissions trading scheme and the £315 million industrial energy transformation fund, to help them to cut energy bills.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
A statutory instrument entitled the Customs (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022 was on yesterday’s Order Paper for approval by the House. It amends the customs arrangements for the United Kingdom by excluding Northern Ireland from them, changing the term “United Kingdom” to “Great Britain”. That runs totally contrary to the assurances given by the Prime Minister that Northern Ireland would remain part of the UK customs territory; it runs contrary to article 4 of the Northern Ireland protocol; and it now means not only that Northern Ireland is part of the single market under the European Court of Justice, but that it is outside the UK customs territory. The motion relating to the instrument was not moved. Can the Financial Secretary give an assurance that it will not be brought back to the House until there has been a meeting to explain why it is necessary, what its impact on Northern Ireland is and why the Government have brought it forward?
Lucy Frazer
I am happy to answer that question. I understand completely the concerns of people in Northern Ireland about the impact of the protocol; the right hon. Member will know how seriously the Government take those concerns and how we are negotiating with the EU to ensure that we get the right arrangement for Northern Ireland. I can give him assurances here and now about what the statutory instrument was doing: it was making very minor technical changes in a number of areas, for example in relation to the provision of information that might have to be given but that was never previously enforced. It was actually easing up the requirements for those who operate trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. These were technical changes, and I am very—
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend has made an extremely good point. Now is the moment for us to go full steam ahead with our transition away from fossil fuels. We are investing in nuclear, we are accelerating our progress on renewables, and we are boosting energy efficiency in homes across the country. This is how we will bring bills down, improve our energy security and tackle climate change.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
When the Government set up the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme, they recklessly failed to agree any guidance on early repayments. As a result, businesses are now being charged extortionate fees and are facing bankruptcy. Why is the Chancellor putting the profits of unscrupulous lenders above the recovery of our small businesses?
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
He is not doing that. The schemes were set up in various ways, depending on the size of businesses, and it will be for the individuals who borrowed money to engage with the lenders to refinance those loans on a case-by-case basis.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend has made an important point. We recognise that some people living in mansion blocks are part of a heat network and are not covered by the price cap. I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the £144 million in discretional funding that went to councils as part of the recent £9 billion energy support package, and to forthcoming legislation in which we will give Ofgem new powers to regulate prices in the sector as a matter of priority.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
We really must start seizing assets and not just freezing them. That is the only way in which we can make sure that the money goes towards the reconstruction of Ukraine. Would it not also be a good idea for us not just to look at the really famous people like Abramovich, but to look at the people who own £750,000 properties in the UK and who may be the cousins, brothers, sisters, parents or some other proxy of Russian oligarchs in the UK? Must we not also do far more to tackle the personal finance of President Putin, much of which, I am told, is in the UK?
John Glen
As ever, the hon. Gentleman has made a powerful point about a very important matter. Work with our allies is ongoing to establish how we can deepen our response in a co-ordinated way in order to make a real impact on illicit finance.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)
My hon. Friend has made an excellent point. He is right to champion the value of apprenticeships, in which the Government keenly believe. I had a great roundtable with apprentices in Newcastle recently, and heard for myself just what a difference they are making both to their employer and to the wider economy.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
It is estimated that the Chancellor’s smash and grab on national insurance will raise £13 billion. By happy coincidence, at the end of the financial year the Chancellor will have an extra £13 billion-worth of borrowing, because the Government have not met the borrowing expectations. Will the Chancellor use that happy coincidence to scrap the tax on jobs?
Rishi Sunak
The forecast for the public finances will be updated next week. As for jobs, I am happy to confirm that, according to today’s figures, there are record numbers of people on payrolls, record numbers of vacancies, and, indeed, more people in work now than before the crisis—and the unemployment rate is now lower than, or at the same level as, it was before coronavirus hit.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
The Government have repealed many of the powers in the Coronavirus Act 2020, but they have not repealed the Act itself. This means that the Treasury can still order Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to start support schemes such as furlough without recourse to Parliament. Control of expenditure is Parliament’s first responsibility, so are the Government going to repeal the Act in total, or will the Treasury take action to give the proper powers back to Parliament?
Rishi Sunak
I would be very happy to look into the matter that my right hon. Friend raises.
Shale Gas Production
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to confirm what the Government’s current stance is on shale gas production in the UK.
The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)
In response to Putin’s barbaric acts in Ukraine and against the Ukrainian people, we need to keep all our energy options open. We have always been clear that the development of shale gas in the UK must be safe and cause minimal disruption and damage to those living and working in nearby sites. This is not a new position. Shale gas and new approaches could be part of our future energy mix, but we need to be led by the science and have the support of local communities. That was in our general manifesto, on which my hon. Friend and I stood at the last election.
The pause on fracking implemented in November 2019 on the basis of the difficulty in predicting and managing seismic activity caused by fracking remains in place, and we will continue to be led by the science in our approach. We are clear that shale gas is not the solution to near-term issues. It would take years of exploration and development before commercial quantities of shale gas could be produced. Additionally, fracking relies on a continued series of new wells, each of which produces gas for a relatively short time. Even if the pause were lifted, there are unlikely to be sufficient quantities of gas available to address the high prices affecting all of western Europe and it would certainly have no effect on prices in the near term.
As the Business Secretary has said, we will continue to back our vital North sea oil and gas sector to maximise domestic production while transitioning to cheaper, cleaner home-grown power at the same time. We will shortly set out an energy supply strategy that will supercharge our renewable energy and nuclear capacity, as well as supporting our North sea oil and gas industry.
Lee Anderson
Last Wednesday, the Secretary of State for Business told this House that
“it did not necessarily make any sense to concrete over the wells”.—[Official Report, 9 March 2022; Vol. 710, c. 354.]
Given that the wells at the Preston New Road site in Lancashire are the only two viable wells in the whole of the UK, pouring concrete down them would be the end of the shale gas industry in the UK. That would be an inappropriate step at this time. We are in the midst of an international crisis, and as the Prime Minister has said, the west has become addicted to Russian gas. We must rectify that immediately; it is a national emergency.
The House was assured last week that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and No. 10 agreed that those wells should not be filled. However, Government rhetoric is not being matched by action on the ground, and Cuadrilla, the company that owns the wells, has spent the last six days trying to get hold of anyone in the Government or the Oil and Gas Authority to get confirmation that it no longer needs to carry out the abandonment process, but it is being ignored. Officials are dragging their heels and, with just days to go, Cuadrilla is legally obliged to plug the wells by 30 June. The OGA keeps confirming that. The Business Secretary says that Cuadrilla should “formally request an extension”, but that is nothing but jobsworth mentality. It is just kicking the can down the road, and we will be back here having the same argument in a few weeks’ time.
Can I ask the Business Secretary why he does not just give practical effect to the words he uttered last week and instruct the OGA to reverse the decision to concrete over the wells? That is what Cuadrilla is waiting for. Either the Government think those wells should be filled or they do not. To concrete or not concrete, that is the question; to frack or not to frack. If we do not want to see concrete being poured down our only viable shale gas wells in the middle of an energy crisis, the Business Secretary needs to act quickly.
As western civilisation grapples with an energy crisis, I am at pains to understand why the Government are risking jeopardising Britain’s long-term energy security over some tiny procedural nonsense. The course of action is clear to me—[Interruption.] I hear some chuntering in the House today, but I challenge any MP in this House to come to my constituency and speak to some real people who are struggling with their gas bills. Not one person in this place has to worry about paying their gas bill, so those Members should hang their heads in shame.
Greg Hands
I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement, and I know he has a long-standing interest in energy on a number of fronts. I commend him for his continuing interest.
Nothing has changed in Government policy relating to fracking and shale gas. On the international crisis, my hon. Friend says the west is addicted to Russian hydrocarbons, but I would say that the UK is not. Last year we imported 4%, but typically we get less than 3% of our gas from Russia. The figures for oil are higher, but they are nothing like the eyewatering percentages we see among our European friends and partners.
On the holes in Preston New Road, Lancashire, the Oil and Gas Authority—the independent regulator—proactively approached Cuadrilla as recently as this week to ask whether it will apply for an extension. However, Cuadrilla has not made a straightforward application to do so. As with any licensee, Cuadrilla can apply for a straightforward extension from the Oil and Gas Authority if it wants to extend the deadline.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and I met the Oil and Gas Authority today, and it is ready to consider Cuadrilla’s letter and potential application. The Government hope the regulator would consider it favourably.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) on securing this urgent question. He is right to try to smoke out the Government’s position, and it is no wonder he is confused—I think he will remain confused after the Minister’s reply.
Let us be clear that the Government placed a moratorium on fracking because they said it is dangerous and they could not rule out
“unacceptable impacts on the local community.”
The Business Secretary said in 2020 that “fracking is over,” and just a few days ago he wrote
“it would come at a high cost to communities and our precious countryside”.
Yet last Wednesday, just three days later, the same Business Secretary said
“the Government are open to the idea.”—[Official Report, 9 March 2022; Vol. 710, c. 355.]
Yesterday, at Chatham House, the Minister ruled it out. The Government are all over the place.
I will ask some questions, because this issue does matter. It is about our energy security, it is about communities that are deeply worried about the impact of fracking, and it is about the climate crisis. Has the Minister or his Department seen any scientific evidence since the 2019 moratorium that suggests fracking might not be dangerous and might be safe? If he does not have any evidence, why is he approaching the Oil and Gas Authority to ask it not to concrete over the wells, which was the original decision? If he does not think fracking is safe, why is he sowing uncertainty in communities across our country? If he does not have any evidence, will he assure the House that no review of fracking—no nods, no winks and no nudges—will be announced in the relaunch of the Government’s energy strategy? Clarity on this matters.
Finally, would it not be the best thing that the Government can do to guarantee energy security—the Minister should be clear about this—to have a green energy sprint by ending the onshore wind moratorium, ending the objection to solar power, embracing tidal power, moving forward with nuclear and having a properly funded national energy efficiency programme?
Greg Hands
I am delighted to see the right hon. Gentleman at the Dispatch Box. He says he is confused, but I have been absolutely clear that Government policy is unchanged from the 2019 manifesto. I am not sure what he finds confusing about Government policy being unchanged.
We did not put our 2019 manifesto on an Ed stone, but it is available online for anybody to see the manifesto pledges on which all Conservative Members ran. Government policy is unchanged, with or without an Ed stone. The right hon. Gentleman says we are sowing uncertainty. No, we have given absolute certainty. Government policy is unchanged from the pause announced in December 2019. There is no review. This is a science-led policy, and support from local communities would be needed if there were to be a change.
Finally, we heard about the “green energy sprint”, which is extraordinary. Since the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in 2010, we have increased the proportion of our electricity generation coming from renewables from 7% to 43%. In any normal terms, that would be a sprint, but it is also a marathon, in the sense that we have done that over 12 years. It has been almost a “sextupling” of the amount of energy coming from our renewables since he was in office. He talks about nuclear, but he will also remember the 1997 Labour manifesto, which said that Labour saw “no economic case” for new nuclear power stations. He has the cheek to come to the Dispatch Box today to urge that we get on with nuclear. The Government are getting on with nuclear and with renewables, doing exactly the green energy sprint that he has suggested.
Mr Speaker
I call the Member whose constituency has been mentioned, Mark Menzies.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
Let me outline at the start that this does affect my constituency, and I am disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) did not have the courtesy to give me advance notice that he was going to be asking a question pertaining to my constituency.
These are not viable wells. Will the Minister just confirm that? The wells in 2012 that caused the first national moratorium were concreted over, with the blessing of Cuadrilla. The last thing it wanted to do at that point was frack again in those wells, so it dug 3 miles away. Both those wells have triggered the second national moratorium, so they are not viable wells. Will the Minister confirm that and stop this nonsense now?
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend illustrates well the point about the importance of keeping local community support if this were to happen. As stated in our manifesto, this was based on what local communities felt at that time. I do not think any local community felt it more strongly than my hon. Friend’s in Fylde. On the process, we have been clear that if Cuadrilla were to apply to the Oil and Gas Authority to extend that deadline, this would be considered by the OGA in the usual way. I repeat that the Secretary of State and I spoke to the OGA just this morning to confirm that.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a rare thing in the Chamber but I completely agree with the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) and the Minister’s opening remarks: now is not the time for knee-jerk reactions. Given that we have this energy crisis, now is the time to stay strategic and not make daft decisions. Clearly, doing fracking would not do anything to change the west’s reliance on gas, even if, as the Minister’s says, the UK does not rely on Russian gas. He can reconfirm that fracking would not release enough gas to change the international market price, so we would still be paying the same wholesale prices. Is it not the case that there is not enough geological and scientific coring information, to the right depths, to understand the viability of extraction, let alone the risks of seismic tremors, which, as we have already heard, occurred at Preston New Road? Therefore, fracking should be ruled out, in the way the Scottish Government have done. Do we not need to invest heavily in renewables? We keep hearing about nuclear from those on the two Front Benches, but committing £63 billion of capital and financing costs to Sizewell C is madness. Our approach should be straightforward renewable energy. I keep going on about pumped storage hydro. Last week, the Secretary of State said that I had been going on about it for 18 months and that it is a good solution but he needs to assess value for money. When are we going to get that value for money? When are we going to get a change to the transmission grid charging system, which is blocking the deployment of Scottish renewables? We need to invest more in tidal stream, to increase the floating offshore target and to set an onshore wind target as well. Let us maximise investment in renewable energy.
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that response. He is right in the first part of what he says: fracking is unlikely to change gas prices—or UK fracking is unlikely to do so. It is certainly unlikely to change it quickly, which is what I said in my opening statement. He is also right to point to the importance of following the science, and geological information is really important. However, I have to say to him that on nuclear he continues to be wrong. The SNP’s ideological hardcore opposition to nuclear is against Scotland’s interests. We have just seen the closure of the Hunterston nuclear power station, which provided enough nuclear energy to supply every home in Scotland for 31 years. It was a great Scottish, as well as UK, solution. Our other great source of gas is the North sea, where I would like to see the SNP approach becoming more constructive and supportive of the North sea transmission deal that the UK Government did a year ago.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I support what my right hon. Friend is saying about the need for more renewables and for nuclear. We all support the objective of net zero by 2050, but we are now in a gas supply crisis. The Government insist that we are in a European market; Europe is heavily dependent on Russia. We need to produce as much gas as we can. It is a simple question: is shale an option for the Government in the immediate term, or not? That is what we need to know; otherwise, the wells will be concreted over, which the Government said they do not want.
Greg Hands
I thank my hon. Friend for his support for renewables, nuclear and net zero, all three of which belong together, right at the centre of Government policy. He said that there was a gas supply crisis, but I would not characterise it that way. The UK has very secure sources of gas supply: around about 50% comes from the UK continental shelf; a further 30% comes from Norway, our great friend and NATO ally; and 20% is bought on the international market. There is obviously an issue with the price, but I do not share in my hon. Friend’s characterisation of a gas supply crisis.
Finally, my hon. Friend asked whether shale is an option. I repeat that Government policy in this area is unchanged: if people can show that the scientific base and the local community support is there, Government policy would be to allow shale if that turned out to be where those two key considerations led.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Council of Europe rapporteur on hydraulic fracturing, I know, as may the Minister, that 5% of the methane produced by fracking is leaked through fugitive emissions. As methane is 80 times worse for global warming than carbon dioxide, that makes fracking worse for global warming than coal, so instead of looking at fracking will the Minister redouble his efforts on renewables, in terms of wind farms in England and marine in Wales? Will he also look to store renewable energy in organic batteries which, when produced at scale, are cheap and do not result in pollutants?
Greg Hands
There were a few questions there. In respect of the data on emissions, it is impossible to judge what UK fracking emissions would look like because data has not been produced on that.
The hon. Gentleman says that fracking is worse than coal; I can be certain that there are more emissions in the production of liquefied natural gas than in the UK continental shelf natural gas. That is for sure—there is two and a half times as much. I would expect the hon. Gentleman to rally behind our call to maintain the UK continental shelf production that is currently ongoing and to import, hopefully, less LNG.
The hon. Gentleman talks about redoubling in respect of renewables. We have Europe’s largest installed offshore wind capacity, which we are already committed to quadrupling. That is twice the rate of the redoubling for which he called.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
The moratorium introduced ridiculously low seismic limits that appeared to have been written by someone who did not understand the Richter scale. Should not the decisions be taken by local planning authorities, with community involvement, and the limits set at levels similar to those we might see for development in London, for example? Should we not be locking in the community benefits of fracking sites?
Greg Hands
I strongly commend my hon. Friend for his support for Government policy on energy, and particularly nuclear. He mentioned seismic limits; I was not the Energy Minister at the time, but I believe that tens of thousands of complaints came in to the Geological Society at the time of the drilling. That showed the magnitude of the public impact of some of the drilling at the time.
On my hon. Friend’s point on local consent, I refer him to what I said earlier about the importance of the need to bring local communities on board in respect of any of these projects. With pretty much every type of energy production, we need to bring the local community on board, and that is the case for fracking as well.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
There has been much hand-wringing in the House about the cost of energy, energy security and our reliance on outside sources, yet within our own country we have sufficient gas to do us for 50 years. Does the Minister think it is sensible to turn our back on the jobs and taxes and to spend money to buy gas overseas when we have an indigenous source, a pipeline across the United Kingdom and one of the richest and deepest shale gas seams in the world?
Greg Hands
We are not turning our back on anybody. We have been absolutely clear that it is vital for us to keep our energy diversity and our energy security. We are not turning our back on anybody or anything, but Government policy on this issue is unchanged: we need to see both the scientific evidence and the local community support before we can proceed, as we set out in our 2019 manifesto.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
It is reassuring to hear from the Government that the support of the community is going to be at the heart of any decisions, because I can tell the Minister that in Rother Valley there is no community support for fracking. In Harthill and Woodsetts, where there is the potential for wells, nobody wants fracking—in fact, the fracking site in Woodsetts is mere yards from an old people’s retirement home. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will focus more on renewables, and not on fracking, because every single minute that they spend talking about fracking is a minute not spent talking about renewables and a minute that engineers are not working on renewables? We need to get renewables online, not fracking.
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend, who also takes a keen interest in energy matters, and particularly renewables, makes a really strong point about the need to maintain local support and local consent for these projects. He is quite right that we have a strong focus on renewables. The Prime Minister himself describes the country as the Saudi Arabia of wind. The commitment to renewables comes right from the very top of our Government and exists throughout the Government.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
In his contribution, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) characterised his constituents as “real people”; I assure him that the people of Lancashire are real people. The people of Lancaster and Fleetwood whom I represent are completely opposed to fracking in Lancashire, and I am sure that I speak for my friend the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) as well when I say that.
The reality is that shale gas production is currently paused. The Minister says we would need support from local communities; does he hear loud and clear that Lancashire says no and people in Lancashire do not want fracking? Will he reassure my constituents that the wells will be concreted over and that the Government will consider turning the pause into a ban on fracking?
Greg Hands
What happens to the wells is soon to be a matter of discussion between the Oil and Gas Authority and Cuadrilla. On what the hon. Lady said about maintaining local support, the support of the local community is incredibly important. It is stating the obvious to some extent, but as Energy Minister I have discovered that for all energy projects—whether offshore wind, onshore wind or solar—we need local community support, and fracking would be absolutely no exception to that.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies), who has done so much over many years to support his constituents, who have been adamantly opposed to shale gas extraction. However, frankly, the Opposition talk a load of tosh when it comes to how we are going to meet our net zero ambitions. My right hon. Friend the Minister has set out our amazing achievements in renewables and in our commitment to achieving net zero. Nevertheless, to meet the exponential increase in electricity demand in order to make the transition, we have to look at the lowest-emission fossil fuel, which is gas. If we have safe and secure resources in this country, which we undoubtedly do, it is absolutely right that we talk to communities about whether they would like to have free gas in return for committing to shale gas extraction in their area. That is only right.
Greg Hands
A huge part of the Government’s delivery on renewables in the past 12 years is down to my right hon. Friend, first as Energy Minister and then as Secretary of State at my Department. In both those roles, she drove forward a big increase and made some of the early, tough decisions on renewables, so I absolutely pay tribute to her.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right on gas: the Climate Change Committee itself has said that the use of gas can still be consistent with reaching net zero in 2015, and—let us face it—it is vital for our energy mix today. She also made some strong points about how we keep local consent and local communities on board. In respect of all forms of energy, that is one of the central principles that the Government are keen to maintain.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Government say that the policy has not changed, but I wonder why it is so hard to make a decision. Ellesmere Port had a public inquiry more than three years ago for a shale gas development and we still have not had a decision from the Minister as to whether that will proceed. Is not it time that the Government stopped trying to have their cake and eat it, actually made a decision and rejected fracking once and for all?
Greg Hands
The policy is clear and laid out in our 2019 manifesto. It is not possible for me at the Dispatch Box to comment on individual decisions as they may be being assessed by the Department, but the policy in 2019 is clear that there is a pause on future fracking developments.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
I thank the Minister for what he has just said, which my constituents will welcome. Many in this House seem to think that I represent South Dakota rather than Blackpool, which has eight out of the 10 most deprived neighbourhoods in the country, all of which are deeply fearful of higher energy costs. Does not the Minister agree that this debate about fracking is a complete distraction from the task in hand of finding speedy, effective and efficient measures to reduce energy costs in the short run, not a further long-term gamble on unproven technology that is many years away from delivering anything meaningful to my constituents?
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend has represented Blackpool incredibly ably for the past 12 years and knows his community well. He makes, again, a strong point about the importance of community consent. He also makes the point about the speedy implementation of alternative, cheaper and cleaner forms of energy. That is why we announced, just a couple of weeks ago, a contracts for difference renewables auction on an annual basis to do precisely that.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Renewables are the cheapest form of energy. It is a well-established industry; fracking is not. Reading the room, I think it is very clear that that is understood here, so why do the Government not ban fracking altogether? The Government have already made new commitments to renewables, but is not now the time, given this new challenge—there is a new challenge; we might not call it a crisis—to double and treble on the plans that are already in the pipeline and make and plan for even more renewables than the Government are currently doing?
Greg Hands
The hon. Member calls on us to double or treble renewables. That is not good enough. We are going for the quadrupling—the quadrupling—of our offshore wind capacity in this decade. It is already the largest in Europe. We are not just doubling or tripling —we are quadrupling that capacity.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Around 85% of the beautiful constituency of Thirsk and Malton is covered by shale gas exploration licences, and we will need gas for many decades into the future, so, in principle, I am not against it. I happen to think that it would be easier to do exploration in the North sea. The energy experts who spoke to the Treasury Committee yesterday were clear that one thing hampering that is the lack of willingness from our banks to extend moneys to invest in exploration, because they are focusing on environmental, social, and governance goals rather than the national interest. Will my right hon. Friend work with the Treasury to make sure that our banks do support exploration because we will need this gas into the future?
Greg Hands
I thank my hon. Friend for that incredibly important question. I agree with him: in principle, I am not against shale gas either. He also raised the important question about banks and lending, particularly to the North sea. Let me be absolutely clear from this Dispatch Box: this Government welcome continuing investment in the North sea. That is absolutely part of our energy security and part of our energy resilience. If there is any further sign that banks need a signal from the Government—either from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy or the Treasury—let me send that signal today: we want to see continuing investment in our UK continental shelf.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that biogas from landfill and sewage waste produces cheaper electricity than almost any other form of gas? If that is so, can we do more to up the volume of that production, as, I think, National Grid suggested some seven years ago?
Greg Hands
The hon. Member raises a very good point and a strong point. In terms of what defines something as being cheaper, there are different ways to cut that. It will depend on what the prevailing prices are of alternative sources of energy. He will know that, for example, gas prices are more than 15 times their five-year historic high, so much depends on what the other prices are out there. But as I said earlier, a strategy will be launched by the Government before the end of the month, which will address a number of the different questions in terms of where our energy supply will come from in future years.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
Diverse organisations such as the Climate Change Committee and the Net Zero Scrutiny Group, which I chair, agree on one thing: gas will be part of our energy mix to 2050 and beyond. That makes domestic supply a very sensible endeavour. I just put the benefits to the Minister: 75,000 potential jobs; tens of billions of investment; billions in terms of tax revenues; massive savings of CO2 compared with LNG inputs, which are truly horrific on CO2, given that they come in on a diesel ship; and the balance of payments positivity. Is there anything in that list that my right hon. Friend disagrees with? Finally, I implore him to send a note of thanks to the US Government who took the dash to shale gas extraction some time ago and it is on the back of that that they have mitigated a lot of our energy failure.
Greg Hands
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his continued interest. I am always happy to meet with his group to discuss these issues. He is absolutely right: domestic supply is very important. This is not the time to be wanting to increase imports of foreign LNG. That is one reason why we want to see a robust UK continental shelf producing UK natural gas. The point he makes about investment, jobs, tax revenues and so on would be considered in the round, but I point out the earlier point about seeing the scientific evidence first and the local community support as well.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
Many Wirral West residents are extremely concerned that petroleum exploration and development licence No. 184 covers Wirral West. The Government’s failure to ban fracking leaves my constituency at risk of this dangerous technology that would extract fossil fuels at the very time that we should be moving to renewables. I led a successful campaign against underground coal gasification in the Dee estuary in 2013 and last month the Government told me that they no longer support the development of UCG. Can the Minister reconfirm whether that position is still the case, or whether it has changed, and will he ban both fracking and UCG?
Greg Hands
I have laid out clearly that our policy on fracking is unchanged. The hon. Member illustrates well the need to keep community support. When it comes to renewables, this Government’s record is one of the best in the world in delivering on renewables. We have the world’s largest installed offshore wind capacity, a new dedicated pot for tidal, and a lot of progress on solar and on onshore wind. All these things are helping the UK to produce a very diversified set of energy sources, which is a key part of our response to the current crisis.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I commend the Minister for his clear answer today that, if an application for shale gas is made, there will be no political objection from the Government, but it must be determined on the basis of the support of the local community, by which I presume he means the local planning process. Can he confirm that that approach, based on local community support, will also apply to large solar farms?
Greg Hands
We have an established process in place for large solar farms and I am not changing policy on that. Solar offers a great addition to our armoury of renewables and it has been a big success in this country in recent times. When it comes to commenting on individual applications, I obviously cannot do that because that is the quasi-judicial role of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
At COP26, Wales signed up to the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance, and we have comprehensively rejected fracking or any new hydrocarbon developments. Shale production will not meet our current energy needs; it will take too long, be too expensive and condemn our climate targets. Will the Minister assure me that he will respect Wales’s opposition to fracking, honour our COP26 pledges and not give in to climate deniers and fossil fuel opportunists?
Greg Hands
I remind the right hon. Lady that energy is reserved. However, I refer her to my earlier point about local community support being important in all our energy policy.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The important thing in all these matters is to remain pragmatic. We will need gas even after we hit 2050, because gas, for example, will be the way we make hydrogen and hydrogen is clearly part of the way ahead. The reality is that the Minister knows that. I ask him, whether on shale gas or the North sea, to remain completely pragmatic—as Conservative Governments should be—to recognise that fact and not to allow this new ideological religion to take over everything. If we want to ask somebody, let us ask them whether they feel their gas prices should be rising at the current rate, or whether they would like lower gas prices.
Greg Hands
I agree absolutely with my right hon. Friend on both the importance of hydrogen and on the importance of being pragmatic. He and I were both elected on a 2019 Conservative party general election manifesto and Government policy is unchanged from that manifesto. That is the height of pragmatism: to stick to our manifesto and keep our options open.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
It is unfortunate that the boss of Cuadrilla has, with the support of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), used the Ukraine crisis to reopen the discredited case for fracking. Will the Minister simply agree that we are better off investing in the renewable technologies of the future in terms of both our energy security and of meeting our climate commitments?
Greg Hands
We are investing massively in renewables. Our current round of allocations in the contracts for difference auction is larger than in any previous round. Within that, we have announced big support for offshore wind and other technologies and, for the first time, a dedicated £20 million pot for tidal.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Real projects take time and money, as my right hon. Friend knows all too well from his work on nuclear and elsewhere. That is why we are here today. There has been inadequate communication between the decision makers in authority and the company, which knows it has to act now if it is to meet the deadline to put concrete in the wells. Will he please personally intervene to ensure that there is effective communication between the authorities and the company, so that we do not have to bring urgent questions such as this to the House?
Greg Hands
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his ongoing interest in all matters relating to energy, but I must say to him that Cuadrilla was told almost a year ago, in June 2021, of the requirement to decommission the two wells by the end of June 2022. It was given a huge amount of notice to do that. I mentioned earlier that the Secretary of State and I have spoken to the Oil and Gas Authority today, and I believe that further communication will happen with the company.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I am glad the Minister has acknowledged that fracking would do nothing to increase our energy security, given that the energy would then be sold on global markets at international prices. I am also grateful that he talks of the importance of public consent. He will know that, given that only 14% of people support fracking and the fact that it would require 6,000 wells to replace even half the gas we are currently using, that will not happen any time soon. However, I urge him to do more on energy demand. This whole debate has been about energy supply—where is the action on reducing demand? That is where the Government are dragging their feet and that needs to change now.
Greg Hands
We have comprehensive investments going on through the heat and buildings strategy and other initiatives to ensure that energy demand is also addressed. But may I say this, because I think the hon. Member missed the last couple of occasions to put questions to the Dispatch Box? One thing I am sure of is that I am glad we did not follow the advice of the Green party back in 1989, when it scored its record result in an election with 15%. Its advice was that it was impossible to take action on emissions while simultaneously growing the economy. I am really glad that we decided to ignore that advice, because in the intervening 30 years we have grown the economy by 78% and reduced our emissions by 44%, comprehensively proving the Green party totally wrong.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I speak as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the environment. After the 1973 oil price shock wreaked economic havoc across the western world, different countries responded in different ways to ensure it never happened again. Denmark went for increasing wind power, Japan went for increasing solar, France went for increasing nuclear power and in Britain we went for increasing oil production in the North sea. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should learn the lessons of history to ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes, and that the response to high international energy, oil and gas prices should not be to press pause on net zero, but to push full steam ahead with it, growing renewables and nuclear power?
Greg Hands
I think I am meeting my hon. Friend’s APPG either this week or next, and I am looking forward to that. He makes some strong points. Net zero is not part of the problem; it is part of the solution when it comes to both the transition and energy security. He talks about not repeating the mistakes of the past and he mentions nuclear. I will put on record that I am glad to see the conversion of the Labour party from saying it was anti-nuclear in its 1997 manifesto to now backing the Government’s nuclear programme. I welcome that conversion.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
My constituents in Formby have experienced test drilling, and they have very real safety concerns. I can assure the Minister that there is widespread community opposition to fracking in my constituency. Will he give my constituents certainty that fracking is ruled out? I will tell him how he can do it—by ending the moratorium on onshore wind and giving full-throated support to tidal energy, both of which are realistic options in the Liverpool city region.
Greg Hands
We have just announced a dedicated pot for tidal energy in the CfD round. In terms of providing certainty, may I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he goes back to the 2019 Conservative party manifesto? The policy is unchanged from that. As a friendly, cross-party suggestion, if he wants to give his constituents some assurance, he could perhaps reprint that manifesto in full and distribute it to all his constituents, saying that there the policy is unchanged.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Gas suppliers are asking energy-intensive businesses, including a major paper mill in my constituency, for large up-front payments. As the Government review their energy strategy, will my right hon. Friend look at a proposal for a Government-backed payment guarantee scheme to help companies to manage cash flow and avoid the need for prepayment?
Greg Hands
Of course we are acutely aware of the difficulties that some energy-intensive industries face. My ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), is looking at that all the time, and we review the situation constantly, but those schemes are often a matter for the Treasury and for agreement with the Treasury.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Back in 2014, the people of Warwickshire were very vocal in their opposition to proposed fracking licences across the county by Cluff Natural Resources. I am sure the Minister would agree that our objective must be to reduce energy demand. Why was it, then, that his Government tore up the zero-carbon homes legislation of the previous Labour Government, which would have seen 1 million new zero-carbon homes built from 2016, reducing the demand for energy in this country?
Greg Hands
I think the hon. Gentleman is inviting me to go back down memory lane to 2010. I will tell him this: thanks to the actions of this Government, the number of homes that are energy efficient and clear those minimal criteria has massively increased in the past 12 years. Ensuring that energy-efficient homes are there is something that this Government are delivering on.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Evidence to the Treasury Committee yesterday reiterated that fracking is not worth doing, but also pointed out that part of the problem is the UK Government’s poor and inconsistent stewardship of our resources in the North sea compared with our neighbours in Norway, who have had a long-term and consistent plan for their resources. What commitment do the Government really have to their own transition plans—that was a question yesterday—and will they invest in renewables, which will benefit not only the environment and our economy but our energy security in years to come?
Greg Hands
I will give the hon. Lady two pieces of advice. First, she may want to visit north-east Scotland herself and see who the people there, particularly the people in and around Aberdeen, think are more supportive of the offshore sector in its entirety, including oil and gas and renewables—the Scottish Government or the UK Government, because the answer is normally the UK Government. Secondly, she asks whether I am still backing the North sea transition deal. That is a deal done by this Government, so of course we are still backing it. I keep asking her colleagues whether they back the North sea transition deal, and I never hear anything. If she is now announcing that the Scottish National party is backing it, then that is one clear gain from today’s contributions from the SNP.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is time that the Government’s policy moved from a pause on shale gas production to a full stop. The people of this country have moved on, and so has the science. On Friday, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), was in York looking at the BioYorkshire project, which will change and transform the future of our energy supply through the biofuels industry. Will the Minister not invest in that instead of old technology that simply will not deliver?
Greg Hands
We do invest in biofuels. My hon. Friend had a very good and productive visit, and I thank everybody in York who received him. We do invest, and we make sure that this is part of our diversified energy mix. Diversification is absolutely key in the space of energy, as other countries have perhaps learned to their cost.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
We cannot allow the current crisis to be used as an excuse to greenlight fracking, and, as the Minister said, any potential benefits to prices would not even be seen for years to come. The Government should be focusing on identifying other solutions such as investment in wind or solar power, or using new agricultural policy schemes in the UK to increase nitrogen use efficiency to reduce the waste of artificial nitrogen fertiliser. What alternative projects is the Minister considering?
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Lady for that question. On hydrogen, I can confirm that one project pretty near to her constituency—the Whitelee wind farm just south of Glasgow, which I went to in November—is looking at how wind power, in this case onshore wind power, can be converted into hydrogen, with £9.8 million of UK Government support. That will drive buses and dustcarts in Glasgow city for many decades to come. It is exactly that sort of innovative project that the UK Government are backing.
Liz Saville Roberts
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister very carefully about whether he would respect Wales’s policy of refusing further coal and gas. I am sure that most people in this House will appreciate that this aspect of energy is devolved to Wales, but he replied that energy is a reserved matter. Can you advise me, Mr Speaker, on how awareness could be established within this Government as to which powers are reserved and which powers are devolved to Wales?
Greg Hands
Well, Mr Speaker, I have nothing to change from my answer. What I can say is that we do have a very constructive relationship with the Welsh Government on areas of energy, as I always had on trade. They hold key levers in areas that are important on delivering energy, such as planning and skills, so of course it is in our interests, on behalf of the people of Wales, to work together as the UK Government and the Welsh Government.
Legal Aid
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)
Today I am publishing the Government’s response to the independent review of criminal legal aid. Copies are available in the House. Our proposals will put criminal legal aid on a stable and sustainable footing for the future. They will help to deliver this Government’s objectives of delivering swift access to justice, and they will usher in the reform we need at this crossroads moment as we build back a stronger and fairer society after this debilitating pandemic.
Covid-19 has been exceptionally challenging across our justice system. We owe our whole legal profession—the solicitors, the barristers, the judges and the court staff—an enormous debt of gratitude for keeping the wheels of justice turning over the past two years. Thanks to their efforts, we are driving down the court backlog and returning to a more normal way of working—in the interests of victims, witnesses, and of course the wider public. I thank Sir Christopher Bellamy for his comprehensive and invaluable review, along with his panel of experts and everyone else who contributed their views.
As I said, this is a crossroads moment. Our legal aid system needs investment if defendants are to have access to the highest-quality advice and advocacy, and if we are to ensure a sustainable criminal legal profession right into the future. To that end, Sir Christopher made two headline recommendations in his review. First, he proposed an increase of 15% in the various criminal legal aid fee schemes. I have accepted this in almost all respects, except where it risks introducing perverse incentives—for example, if it were to be applied to the rate of pages of prosecution evidence.
Secondly, Sir Christopher recommended an overall increase in investment in criminal legal aid of £135 million. Our package of reforms, announced today, matches that recommendation. As part of that, we will hold £20 million aside each year for longer-term investment, including reform of the litigators graduated fee scheme, the youth court, and the wider sustainability and development of solicitors’ practice, so that the system pays more, and more fairly, for the work actually done. On top of our additional funding to support court recovery, this will take taxpayer funding of criminal legal aid to £1.2 billion—the highest level in a decade.
Let me now unpack some of this for the House. In the short term, our cash injection will give a 15% boost to police station work, magistrates court work, much of the Crown Court work of advocates and litigators, and the work of solicitors in very-high-cost cases, as well as some of the smaller schemes. While getting pay and conditions right is clearly critical, Sir Christopher also made a number of wider systemic recommendations about the future of criminal legal aid that we also intend to take forward. We will reform fee schemes so that they properly and fairly reflect the way our legal professions work in the real world today. We will increase the diversity of our legal professions, promote a more sustainable criminal defence market, and harness the power of new technology.
Supporting a sustainable, diverse and stable criminal defence market depends both on the right fees and on having an adequate supply of legal practitioners, so we propose to review the standard crime contract to reduce barriers to innovative ways of doing business. We will offer grants for training contracts for criminal solicitors, and for solicitor advocates to gain higher rights of audience, expanding the supply of high-quality lawyers in the system. The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives has helped to remove barriers to entry into the profession and, in particular, has helped to promote non-graduate routes into the law. We want to take those reforms further again. So under our proposals, CILEX professionals will be able to become duty solicitors without having to achieve additional qualifications.
Work as a duty solicitor often involves unsocial hours and lengthy travel, making it hard for those with caring responsibilities, who are disproportionately women, to pursue a career in criminal defence. We want to make it easier for everyone to work in this area, so we will explore new ways of delivering remote legal advice in police stations. As Sir Christopher highlighted, the sustainability of the criminal solicitor profession is a particular challenge, so today I am proposing to expand the Public Defender Service, focusing on areas where more capacity is needed. That means that when there is risk of market failure, we will have a more flexible range of options to address it.
Next, Sir Christopher recommended that I propose an advisory board that will help represent all parts of the profession and shape future criminal legal aid policy. We will also gather views on how and where the innovative new technology that is helping us with the backlog can be used to even greater effect.
Our proposals respond to the full range of Sir Christopher’s review. They will increase efficiency across our system and deliver swifter justice for victims and defendants by incentivising early advice and resolution where that is right and proper. They will reinforce a more sustainable market, with publicly funded criminal defence practice seen as a viable, long-term career choice, attracting the brightest and best from all backgrounds and providing a further pipeline for the judges of tomorrow. It is only right that, as we reinforce the supply and sustainability of legal practice, we look closely at those who our legal system and our legal aid system are there to support, namely those who need legal representation and cannot afford to pay for it themselves.
The thresholds for eligibility for legal aid, which have not been raised for more than a decade, need to be reviewed, and it is timely to review them as we consider our wider reforms. Today, we have launched a separate consultation on legal aid means-testing. Our proposals will ensure a fairer justice system that targets legal aid towards the people who need it most—those least able to pay and the most vulnerable in our society. No one’s income or financial situation should stop them enforcing their legal rights or defending themselves when they have been accused of a crime. That is why this Government propose to significantly increase income and capital thresholds for civil and criminal legal aid, so that even more people in England and Wales will qualify for that support.
A funding boost of £20 million means that more than 2 million more people in England and Wales will be eligible for civil legal aid each year, and 3.5 million more will be eligible for legal aid to fund their defence at the magistrates court. We will exclude disputed assets from the civil legal aid means test. That move will particularly benefit victims of domestic abuse where the abuser is controlling assets. We will also remove the financial cap on legal aid eligibility in the Crown court for all defendants, so that everyone can access the right support at the right time.
At the same time, we will remove means-testing entirely for legal proceedings brought by parents whose children are facing the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. At the worst time in any parent’s life, those parents must and should have access to proper advice and representation, and they should not be expected to shoulder the burden themselves.
The proposals I have set out today represent a major investment in our legal aid system. They will ensure our justice system is fair, fit for the future and supported by a thriving and diverse legal profession, and that it delivers swifter and fairer justice across our society. I commend this statement to the House.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I thank the Justice Secretary for advance sight of his statement. I could not agree more that we owe our whole legal profession—solicitors, barristers, court staff and judiciary—a debt of gratitude for keeping the wheels of justice turning over the last two years. I pay tribute to their hard work in helping deliver justice for victims. I also put on record my thanks to Sir Christopher Bellamy and the rest of the team for their work.
Today’s announcement and response to the Bellamy review is welcome, particularly the Government’s commitment to increase legal aid rates by the 15% that Sir Christopher Bellamy recommended. The proposed restructure of the fee schemes will benefit members of the public and the profession alike. Similarly, we welcome having an independent advisory board to keep policy matters pertaining to criminal defence under review. Can the Justice Secretary outline the membership of the advisory board? Will he ensure that it is both representative and diverse, to help deliver meaningful change?
We will study many of the other measures that the Justice Secretary has mentioned, including the reforms of the duty solicitor scheme, in more detail. However, if the Government accept that criminal legal aid is in a perilous state, the same is surely true of civil legal aid, where decades of cuts and underfunding have crippled practitioners, and we are seeing the same recruitment and retention crisis. Urgent investment is necessary, and the Ministry of Justice has yet to publish any details on the civil sustainability review. We are suffering from serial underfunding of the entire legal aid sector, paired with a strict means test and a huge backlog in the criminal courts.
We know that justice delayed is justice denied, and victims are paying the price. Between 2012 and 2020, annual legal aid spending fell by 27% in real terms, largely as the result of changes under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. That is £4.2 billion over a seven-year period—an average of £600 million a year. Essentially, we have a position where it is simply not financially viable to be a legal aid provider in many areas of law. The Government have accepted that to be the case in criminal law, but the maths is no different in civil law. There is no doubt in my mind that the legal aid sector has survived purely on good will, and I know that at first hand as a former lawyer. Chronic underfunding has brought the criminal justice system to its knees and created advice deserts across the UK. The steps outlined today are too little, too late.
There can be no surprise then that the profession has voted with its feet. Just a few days ago, 94% of the membership of the Criminal Bar Association voted to take industrial action. That will have a disastrous impact on the backlog in the criminal courts that existed well before the beginning of the pandemic. The Government may find the profession does not accept their response, their appreciation of the urgency or the time it will take to implement. Can the Lord Chancellor set out when the recommendations will take effect? Victims have waited long enough.
While the means test review for both criminal and civil legal aid is welcome, it is of little use to the public if they are eligible for legal aid but cannot access the provider base. Advice deserts are a direct result of the negative impact caused by reductions in legal aid funding. There is no justice if there is no access to justice.
The Justice Secretary claims this is a major investment in the criminal justice system, but make no mistake: it is the absolute bare minimum, and it does not fix a decade of Tory austerity. It fails victims at every turn. The erosion of access to legal aid represents a threat to the rule of law. It does not matter what legal rights an individual has on paper if they do not have the means to uphold them. The Government pay lip service to levelling up the country. When will they level up access to justice?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the criminal legal aid proposals and the means test review. The announcement today is principally about criminal legal aid, and if I have understood him correctly, he backs us on all the criminal legal aid proposals.
Can I be clear in relation to the CBA ballot? If the hon. Gentleman welcomes our proposals, presumably he would agree, as I hope would others across the House, that it is totally unwarranted for the CBA now to proceed with strike action.
The hon. Gentleman asked about timing. On criminal legal aid, we will consult for 12 weeks. I would expect him to agree that we should follow the normal public law principles to have that consultation, otherwise we are exposed to a greater risk of judicial review.
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman is nodding, and I am pleased that he does support that, even if some of his colleagues do not. We will then introduce a statutory instrument so that the proposals enter into force in October.
The hon. Gentleman talked about cuts to legal aid. I remind him that a previous Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, had plans to cut almost £200 million a year from the legal aid budget in 2009, as was made clear by the noble lord Lord Carter, who said,
“we had to break the hold of the criminal practitioners and force them to restructure so we could get more control over the costs of provision”.
In relation to our criminal legal aid proposals, we are ensuring that we have a sustainable system that supports practitioners but, above all, supports victims, witnesses and the society that we want to build after the pandemic.
I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that there will be 2 million more people with access to civil legal aid, which he mentioned, and 3.5 million more people with access to criminal legal aid in the magistrates courts. I thank him for his pretty fulsome support for the criminal legal aid proposals. I urge him to reflect on and recall the Labour party’s proposition before the 2010 election. I hope that he will be clear that it is totally unwarranted for the CBA to now proceed with strike action.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee, Sir Robert Neill.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
This is a very welcome announcement and I congratulate the Secretary of State on taking on board Sir Christopher Bellamy’s recommendations. I join him in thanking Sir Christopher for his report and all those in the legal profession who have kept the system going under real difficulty. In appreciating the real difficulty that the profession has been undergoing in these times, does he agree that it is important, in order to get this right, to have the earliest possible increase and to take on board the words of the chair of the Bar Council, who says:
“We will work with the Ministry of Justice to make sure the funds are delivered swiftly, effectively, and fairly.”?
Can we meet the Bar Council and the profession in that spirit of co-operation and get this implemented at the earliest lawful opportunity?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee is absolutely right and I welcome the constructive responses from the Bar Council and the Law Society. He is right that we must do it as swiftly as possible, but he makes an important point that we must do it lawfully. We are following the normal public law principles in having a 12-week consultation. As I have indicated, we intend to bring the proposals into force through an SI by October. I hope that that strikes the right balance. As he and, in fairness, the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) said, we extend our gratitude to all the lawyers—solicitors and barristers—judges and court staff who have done an incredible job through a very difficult couple of years.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State now accept that the swingeing cuts in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 have hobbled access to justice for a decade? Does he accept what the chair of the Criminal Bar Association, Jo Sidhu, said about the announcement today, which was that it
“will not be sufficient to retain enough criminal barristers to keep the wheels of justice turning and that means victims will be failed”?
If he does not accept that, what effect will it have on the backlog? He currently has a pathetic target to reduce the backlog to 53,000 cases over the next three years. If this is a groundbreaking change, what effect will it have on that backlog?
Dominic Raab
We will take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman given that he was there at the time that Labour was planning those swingeing cuts and, indeed, he backed them. Only now, when we have had to deal with the financial consequences of the economic mess that the last Labour Government left behind and put ourselves on a sustainable footing with the biggest investment in legal aid for a decade, he is complaining.
The Crown court backlog and the magistrates court backlog are coming down. Again, I did not hear from him a clear statement that strike action would be not only unwarranted but the last thing we need as we build back and recover in our Crown courts and magistrates courts.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. I am glad that he has followed the excellent recommendations of Sir Christopher Bellamy and I am glad to see the work that I started coming to fruition. He is right to draw a contrast between the approach and language in the Bellamy report and some of the hostile environment, frankly, that the criminal Bar had to put up with under the last Labour Government, which I remember very well. I also commend the raising of the threshold on civil legal aid, which will be one of the single biggest extensions of eligibility that we have seen in many a year. May I press him on the consultation period? I agree that he is absolutely right to follow public law principles, but I suggest that a slightly shorter period of eight weeks followed by an SI could deliver the necessary changes in an even shorter time.
Dominic Raab
I pay tribute to the huge amount of work that my right hon. and learned Friend did, which I was fortunate to inherit, before we came forward with our proposals. I agree with much of what he has said and done in this area. He is right to talk about the environment and the climate within which we talk about lawyers, because it was of course under the last Labour Government that they named and shamed lawyers for earning too much in fees. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) is chuntering from a sedentary position, but he is guilty of doing exactly that under the last Labour Government. We have not done that; we have engaged in a sober and sensible way because we understand the value of the legal profession, both barristers and solicitors.
I understand my right hon. and learned Friend’s call for a slightly shorter consultation period but, given the legal risk that I have been advised on, shortening it from 12 weeks to eight weeks does not seem the right thing to do. The consultation period is there not just as a legal matter but to ensure that we can tease out all the detail of the reforms, such as the implications of the fees and of the wider systemic reforms that we are introducing. It is right to take that time and I cannot see how a difference of four weeks can justify strike action in this case.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
The Government cannot swerve responsibility for having made the largest cuts that have ever been made to the legal aid budget, which have brought civil and criminal providers to their knees. The whole service is held together by good will. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on legal aid, I welcome every single penny that comes back into the service, but the fact remains that there is a crisis of capacity. Our inquiry report a few months ago showed just how many providers are closing and have been closing every month over recent years. I ask the Secretary of State exactly what steps he will now take to deal with the crisis in the provision of civil legal aid—he did not answer that in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan)—not least to accommodate the additional demand for service that will now flow into it as an admittedly welcome consequence of adjustments to the means test.
Dominic Raab
I think the hon. Lady was also around at the time when the Labour Government were planning their cuts. [Interruption.] She does not like it, but I remind her that it was Tony Blair who said that the Labour Government would
“derail the gravy train of legal aid”,
so I am afraid that she cannot come to the House with those crocodile tears. On her substantive point, however, the consultation on expanding the Public Defender Service and the 15% raise in legal fees will deal with the scarcity of legal aid practitioners in certain areas. As I have already said in relation to the means test review, millions of extra people will become eligible for civil legal aid, which she should welcome.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I, too, welcome what my right hon. Friend has announced. He is right to focus on attracting bright young lawyers into criminal defence work. Does he also recognise that it is important to retain more experienced criminal defence lawyers who can take on the complex cases that, as he will appreciate, form a larger and larger proportion of the criminal courts caseload?
Specifically in relation to pages of prosecution evidence, I understand that my right hon. Friend is following one of Sir Christopher’s recommendations in that respect, but he will understand that that has been a proxy for the complexity and difficulty of criminal cases for some time. If we are not to increase fees in that regard, how does he intend to reflect those complex and difficult cases?
Dominic Raab
I agree with many of my right hon. and learned Friend’s points. He makes the right point that we must ensure that we still have the expertise we need at the high end of the profession. In relation to the rate of pages of prosecution evidence, he will know that we want to ensure that we do not encourage perverse incentives. I am not suggesting that that is done deliberately, but systemically it is something that we need to look at, and it is right to do so. Instead, as set out in the Government’s response, we will invite views on the longer term reform of the litigators’ graduated fee scheme to include the optimal basic structure of litigator remuneration, the role of pages of prosecution evidence in determining fees and what data should be collected to enable a thorough examination of litigator preparatory work. I hope that will address the points made.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
For years, the south-west has been called a legal aid desert. There is currently a huge backlog in the courts; legal aid is one part of the problem and workforce another. Justice delayed is justice denied. Can the Secretary of State tell me what immediate difference this statement will make to the thousands of victims in the south-west who are waiting for justice or who cannot even get justice now?
Dominic Raab
The proposals on the Public Defender Service and the means test review, and the increase in the fees, will all look across the board at areas where there is a scarcity of supply of practitioners willing to take on that work, in order to fill the gaps. I look forward to that and I hope that the hon. Lady will contribute to the consultation.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
The Government are to be congratulated on accepting Sir Christopher’s headline recommendations in full. I saw how much care and consideration went into that piece of work, but I would like to ask my right hon. Friend about chapter 13 of the report, which deals with fee income at the criminal Bar. Sir Christopher found that at every level of seniority female barristers earned less than their male counterparts, on average by 34%. He also found that non-white criminal practitioners earned less than white criminal practitioners by an average of 10%. What reassurances can he provide that this significant injection of public money will not be used to sustain potentially unlawful pay disparities?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this very important point. In 2020, the gender balance at the point of entry among specialist criminal barristers was roughly 50:50, but at the senior level there is a much higher imbalance, with a ratio of 70:30 men to women. What are we doing about that? Our fees changes, for example in relation to duty solicitors, will particularly support younger lawyers. They will disproportionately help women with caring responsibilities.
We are also looking at further diversification through the roles and the rights that CILEX members can acquire. CILEX has allowed non-graduate routes into the profession, and I think 76% of its members are women. More generally, breaking down glass ceilings and barriers to entry into the profession is important. Beyond fees, the consultation will allow us to consult and to understand what more we can do systemically to attract a broader diversity of practitioners into the profession and then, critically, allow them to flourish.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is right to say that we need to deliver swifter justice for victims, but if you will allow me a slight detour, Madam Deputy Speaker, do we not also need to deliver swifter justice to victims of war crimes in Ukraine? What is the Government’s attitude now towards the International Criminal Court? I think he would agree that attacking a nuclear power station or civilians is a war crime, but will he ensure that it is a war crime to initiate a war of aggression?
Dominic Raab
I share the hon. Gentleman’s interest in this subject and it is a timely, if circuitous, question, because I was in The Hague yesterday, where I met the ICC chief prosecutor and the president of the court; as he Gentleman knows, the ICC is independent and it is for it to determine those issues. I think I was the first Justice Minister to go there, and I was clear that we will provide a package of support, including financial and technical assistance, to enable the office of the prosecutor to do its job. We will be co-ordinating with our allies and our key partners so that is a concerted effort. The message needs to go out to Putin and to every commander on the ground in Ukraine that if they follow illegal orders they will end up in the dock of a court in The Hague and potentially in prison.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I will resist the temptation to broaden questions about the statement still further.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. Will he confirm that the intention is to increase the thresholds each year in line with inflation, so that we do not get to the same position we are in now? If so, what factor of inflation will he include on an annual basis? Finally, what impact does he expect this measure to have on the youth courts?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. We do not plan to index the thresholds, but he makes a reasonable point. We will obviously need to keep them under regular review, but this is a big step change in the threshold and we will keep a close eye on the impact that inflation has on them. More broadly, he asks about the youth courts, which are a crucial part of the system. We are proposing a general uplift of 15% to magistrates courts fees, and the youth courts will be included in that uplift.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Will the review of legal aid specifically look at how disabled people can enforce their rights under the Equality Act 2010?
Dominic Raab
The review does not specifically deal with that, but if the hon. Lady and other groups would like to make submissions to the review, I will ensure they are properly taken into account.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement about the increased funding of £135 million a year. Can he confirm that that extra funding will mean that more of my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme will be covered by legal aid, so that they will be able to exercise their legal rights and defend themselves if they are accused?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should never forget that as important as the legal profession is—we have all paid tribute to its members—the legal and justice system is there for my hon. Friend’s constituents and those of hon. Members across the House; for victims, witnesses and the public at large.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Criminal legal aid issues have become particularly acute in Barnsley in the last few days because the roof of Sheffield magistrates court has fallen in, meaning that defendants are queueing up in Barnsley. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that this a damning indictment of the legal system under his Government?
Dominic Raab
Of course we will look at all courts with maintenance issues, but in reality record investment in magistrates courts has been secured in this spending review. We have increased the sentencing powers of the magistrates courts from six to 12 months, and we are further supporting the practitioners who serve those courts with the measures we have announced today.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Sir Christopher Bellamy’s review of criminal legal aid was based on two overriding principles: that remuneration of criminal lawyers should be such as to attract the right legal talent that the system requires, and that there should be equality of arms so that the resources available to defence are broadly similar to those available to prosecution. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those are the right principles for civil legal aid as well as criminal legal aid?
Dominic Raab
The criminal legal aid system is different from the civil legal aid system, but the overarching principles and the need to ensure access to justice are common to both. That is why under the means test review we have ensured not only that 3.5 million more people will have access to criminal legal aid in the magistrates courts, but that 2 million more will have access to civil legal aid, which I hope addresses my hon. Friend’s concern.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Although it relates to England and Wales, I would like to see this being part of the work that the Northern Ireland Assembly is doing on policing and justice. While decent pay for lawyers, and thereby increased ability of the working poor to gain access to civil legal aid, is welcome, and while there seems to be the necessary movement towards that in what we have heard today, can the Secretary of State assure us that those who need help will now get it? Historically, that has not been the case.
Dominic Raab
The proposals that we set out today apply to England and Wales—we respect the devolved competences—and we believe they will effectively address systemic issues across the justice system. I was in Belfast recently, and I have had engagement with all parties in relation to justice issues. We have a lot to learn from all jurisdictions across the UK and we will continue that two-way dialogue.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a former practitioner both as a criminal solicitor and, indeed, at the criminal Bar. I compliment and commend the former Justice Secretary for appointing Sir Christopher, who did an incredibly difficult job and did it incredibly well. However, barristers are about to do something that they do not want to do, which is to take action—industrial action—because this Government have brought the criminal justice system to its knees over a decade. The problem is that they do not have confidence in the Justice Secretary, and for good reason. The Government have already significantly underestimated their expenditure on the accelerated items of the criminal legal aid review by 80%, so how can they believe that the money will in any event come to them? The real problem is that the money is needed now—not in three months, but immediately—and that is how he will prevent industrial action by the criminal Bar.
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman seems to be the shop steward for what I think is totally unwarranted industrial action, which was balloted for before we had announced our proposals. I hope the Criminal Bar Association will take the more constructive tone we have heard from the other practitioner groups, because if he commended my right hon. and learned Friend my predecessor for appointing Sir Christopher, he surely must welcome the Government’s acceptance of the proposals he has made virtually in full.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement.
International Travel
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about international travel.
It is almost two years to the day since the country first went into lockdown—two years in which we have fought an exceptionally difficult and unpredictable pandemic, two years of unprecedented restrictions on mobility and two years that have had a drastic impact on travel and on the industry. However, we have now reached an important milestone in our journey back to pre-pandemic normality. After getting rid of testing requirements for eligible vaccinated passengers a few weeks ago, I am pleased to confirm that we are once again leading the way by removing all the remaining covid measures affecting international travel into the UK.
That means we are the first major economy to get back to the kind of restriction-free travel we all enjoyed before covid. Whether for reuniting with friends and family, holidays or business trips, from 4 am on Friday 18 March—this Friday—there will be no testing or quarantine requirements for any passengers arriving into the UK, regardless of their vaccination status, and we will go further. I have heard the calls from passengers, airlines and Members across the House that the passenger locator form is a burden that has simply outlived its usefulness, so I am delighted to confirm that, from Friday, we will be removing the passenger locator form for all passengers. No more quarantine, no more tests and no more forms—international travel is back.
It will be the first time in two years that we can enable frictionless journeys for passengers travelling to the UK, and the remaining international travel legislation will therefore be revoked this Friday—18 March—two months earlier than the original expiry date of 16 May. The devolved Administrations have confirmed that they will align on the removal of these measures, so this change will be UK-wide. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) chuntering away from a sedentary position. I will come to the Opposition policy, which was both to have further restrictions and then to lift restrictions—often simultaneously—depending on which Member on the Front Bench we listened to.
Today’s announcement is another vital step in our strategy set out by the Prime Minister last month for Britain to live with covid-19 and to manage an endemic virus. Thanks to the success of our vaccine and booster programmes in building population-wide immunity—further boosters are on the way for the most vulnerable this spring—we are in the strongest possible position to lift covid travel regulations without compromising public health.
We must of course remain vigilant against possible future variants, but thanks to the robust protective shield we have built, we can avoid simply reverting to the same restrictions we have used in the past. Even if another variant of concern emerges, next time we will react differently. We have learned a lot during this pandemic, and we will use that experience to respond in more measured ways and more flexible ways. For example, while quarantine hotels were appropriate for red-list arrivals at an earlier stage of the pandemic, we are now standing down the remaining capacity. Our default approach in future will be to take the least stringent possible measures, avoiding border restrictions to minimise impacts on travel. So we will maintain a range of contingency measures in reserve, tailoring our response to the situation. Our first recourse will be to public health guidance, and guidance to ports, airports and operators on how passengers and staff can stay safe and protect others, and we will avoid stricter restrictions wherever we possibly can.
Although we are dropping all testing and quarantine requirements, our advice to eligible adults who have not been vaccinated stays the same: “If you’ve not got jabbed, then please get your vaccinations. If you’ve had two jabs, please get a booster. It will boost and protect your health, it will protect vulnerable people around you and it will smooth travel to other countries.” It is important to say that vaccination status may continue to be required in other countries to make journeys seamless. Passengers should continue to check travel advice on the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office website, before they book and travel, to see what restrictions may still be in place in the countries people are visiting.
As we better deal with covid-19 at home, we will continue to make our leading contribution to tackling the disease abroad. We are sending 100 million further doses of vaccines to other countries by this summer. More than 2.6 billion doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine have now been supplied to countries around the world on a non-profit basis, almost two thirds of which have gone to low and lower middle-income nations. We are working with key international partners to establish common rules and common contingency measures, reflecting what we have learned from this pandemic, to use in the future.
While all of these measures have been necessary, I do not underestimate for one second just how hard travel restrictions have been. They have been difficult for passengers, and damaging for travel and tourism in particular. Now that we have lifted the final covid measures on inbound flights, the industry will play a vital role in helping build back better from the pandemic. Soon we will publish our strategic framework for aviation, supporting the sector and the jobs that rely on it, and as part of that we will be considering the workforce, skills, connectivity and of course the crucial mission to deliver our net-zero commitments. I will set out more details about the strategic framework in due course.
We promised that we would keep draconian and costly covid measures in place for not a day longer than was absolutely necessary. Now we stand as one of the most vaccinated countries in the world, and we are also the first major economy to travel freely once again without restrictions. The UK has achieved many hard-won gains over the past two years thanks to the endurance and resolve of the public. Now we are seeing the long-awaited rewards for that patience and determination. The removal of all remaining travel measures this Friday will mean passengers can book trips with confidence, businesses can plan with greater certainty and Britain can continue to bounce back from the pandemic, as we learn to live with covid. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. The aviation industry is a critical part of the UK economy, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs, and we all want to see a safe return to international travel, which is why, earlier this year, Labour outlined our comprehensive plan to live well with covid and to protect lives and livelihoods.
We know that the virus will continue to change and adapt and we will need to live with it as it does, and that is critical when it comes to the travel industry. Another variant of concern may emerge, as the Secretary of State has acknowledged, and lessons must be learned from previous Government responses that damaged the industry. He partially outlined some contingency measures, but he had previously committed to publishing a full contingency strategy to deal with possible future variants. With surging cases in international hubs such as Hong Kong and Shanghai, does he agree that he should be fully transparent about his plans, and that that would boost confidence for the travelling public and the airline industry? Can we get a commitment to the publication of that strategy today?
Today’s announcement, which ends restrictions for the unvaccinated, is a reminder of another stark truth: in an era of global international travel, no one is safe until everyone is safe. We in the UK have learned that lesson the hard way. The Secretary of State has confirmed that we will be sending 100 million doses to low-income countries by the summer. Will he explain how 77 million doses will be delivered in just three months, when 23 million have been delivered over the past nine? If we are to break the cycle of new variants, there is only one way to do it: to vaccinate the world.
The elephant in the room today for the Transport Secretary is the cost of living crisis about to engulf this country. The barrier to passengers booking holidays with confidence this spring and summer is not a passenger locator form; it is the historic collapse in living standards facing millions, and the Conservatives’ refusal to do anything about it. The barrier will be the record rise in energy bills in two weeks’ time, the brutal national insurance hike that his Government are imposing on working people, and the record prices of petrol that are swallowing up the incomes of millions of British people as we speak.
This country is facing the largest decline in living standards since the 1950s, putting a holiday beyond the reach of many, and the Transport Secretary has literally nothing to say. Indeed, the only step he has taken is to hike up rail fares by the largest amount in a decade. Today’s announcement eases the remaining travel restrictions, but let us be clear: the barriers to holidays this summer are the tax rises his Government are imposing on hard-working families, the surging petrol prices, and the cost of living crisis made in Downing Street. Either he is oblivious to this crisis, or he is completely indifferent. Either way, is it not time this Government woke up?
Grant Shapps
I thought we were here to talk about releasing the final covid measures, but I am always up for the challenge and I am happy to respond to the hon. Lady. She started by talking about the importance of and costs to the aviation industry, and I have an ask for her in return. Yesterday, it became apparent that the Labour Government in Wales were less than chuffed with the idea of removing those final measures. Indeed, they want to continue to pile on the costs, bureaucracy and red tape of passenger locator forms, even though they are past their point of relevance. That is what the Labour Government want to do in Wales, and therefore we should not take lectures on how to improve things for the industry. I would have thought that being the first major economy in the world to make travel covid-free in terms of removing those forms would have been warmly welcomed, and I think the Welsh Government could do the same.
The hon. Lady referred to the importance of vaccination and I entirely agree. Moments ago we were talking behind the Speaker’s Chair about the terrible figures in Hong Kong to which she referred, and noting the fact that the deaths that are occurring from the spike in cases in Hong Kong appear to be entirely down to the lack of booster vaccinations. I know she will join me in being grateful that we in this country have managed to get those booster vaccinations to the population most at risk, particularly older people.
The hon. Lady asked about the toolkit of responses if covid comes back, and we had an extensive conversation about that with the UK Health Security Agency in our covid operations meeting yesterday. The collective decision, across all four nations, was that since we do not know the exact form that covid will take in future, rather than listing every possible measure—which, by the way, is every possible measure that has been taken in the past—it would be better and more responsible to see what we are facing in the specific when we see a variant of concern. Members across the House will already know the range of events and possibilities available, noting that vaccinations and pharmaceutical measures make those very different. [Interruption.] I do not agree with the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East that listing a range of increasingly draconian measures will somehow reassure the industry. I think it would be quite the opposite, and that was agreed across all four nations.
Finally, the hon. Lady went on to discuss the cost of living—a very valid subject to be discussing, although I am not sure it quite fits this debate. But briefly, I thought that the Leader of the Opposition had stood at that Dispatch Box a couple of weeks ago and acknowledged and warned the House that the cost of living would rise because of the war in Ukraine—I quote the right hon. and learned Gentleman when I say that. The hon. Lady asked specifically what we have done about the cost of petrol in tanks, but for 10 years, 11 years, we have frozen fuel duty, and for every one of those years Labour opposed that—every single year without fail. That measure saved £15 per gallon for the average family car, but what have Labour Members done? They have voted against it every time. They now have the chutzpah to come to the Dispatch Box and ask what we are doing about it. It is simply extraordinary. The hon. Lady then referred to rail fares, which have risen at nearly half the level of inflation. That represents a real-terms cut in rail fares because, as she knows, inflation is higher.
The hon. Lady mentioned and referenced employment and unemployment, and I have three facts for her. First, we have record levels of employment in this country, which are higher than before covid. Secondly, unemployment has been falling every month for the past year. Thirdly, no Labour Government in history have left power with unemployment lower than when they came to office.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Transport Committee, Huw Merriman.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was beginning to wonder which statement I had walked in on. Let us return to the theme of international travel, not least because thousands of people have worked in that industry over the past two years and have suffered greatly. It would be respectful of this place to focus on them, rather than on some of the wider issues that have just been brought up.
I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement. Over the past two years I know that he has battled hard to support this sector. These are the last barriers to be removed, and I hope the industry will now be ready for lift off. Border Force resources will be required once capacity increases in the summer. Will he do everything in his power, working with the Home Secretary, to ensure that we have everybody we need at the airports? I used the airport at the weekend. Border Force was fantastic and really efficient, but as numbers upscale, so must it upscale.
Grant Shapps
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Ensuring that Border Force and its resources are in the right place will be important, especially when our airports get busier again. I will certainly undertake to speak to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about those provisions. It might interest the House to know that with e-gates, not having to check a separate database for the passenger locator form—that was automatically carried out by e-gates, using both software and hardware—saves up to six seconds per passenger coming through. That should also help to relieve some of the queueing.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the SNP spokesperson, Gavin Newlands.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. It has become increasingly clear that the much vaunted four-nations approach often stems from situations where the devolved Governments are left with little choice, given the nature of the devolution funding settlement. Whether for furlough, community testing, or the various travel arrangements, when the devolved Governments perhaps took a different view, at least with the timing of such decisions, no public money would be made available for a different public health approach. It is not quite a “do as I say” approach; it is more a “do as we will fund” approach. Borrowed funds are obviously not available to the devolved Administrations, and as the Secretary of State alluded, the Welsh Government have said they are extremely disappointed at the dropping of testing requirements. The Scottish Government have said that they followed the UK Government to avoid the harm to tourism caused by non-alignment. Is this another example of the UK Government making a decision, and strong-arming the devolved Administrations into following them to avoid economic disadvantage?
Despite the unease that some members of society will have following these announcements, particularly given the rather nebulous commitment to continued surveillance, this is welcome news for the aviation and travel sectors, which come out of the pandemic in much poorer, smaller and less competitive shape than they entered it. That is largely a result of the extremely poor support given to the sector, in which the UK stood out among top aviation markets for its paucity of support.
The future is far from certain with events in Ukraine and covid potentially causing disruption as well as the cost of living, as has been alluded to. So I would like the Government to commit to being a bit more fleet of foot on aviation support should the need arise. Indeed, when will the strategic aviation review be published?
The UK Government have said that the UK Health Security Agency will continue to monitor variants of concern, so, further to the concerns outlined by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), will the Secretary of State explain what measures will be part of that continued monitoring, how long it will operate for and how it will be funded? Lastly, what consideration at all did the Secretary of State give to the position of devolved Governments in reaching the decision that he has announced?
Grant Shapps
I should point out to the hon. Gentleman and the House that the UK Health Security Agency is a four-nations body made up of the chief medical officers from all parts of the United Kingdom, including Scotland. Therefore, when we came to yesterday’s discussion at Covid-O, which included Scottish Ministers, we could take into account the advice provided. I do not want to accuse him of being happy to see the forms and bureaucracy scrapped while still somehow opposing it, but it seems to me that if one is really serious about cutting bureaucracy, one should welcome this step.
The hon. Gentleman refers to support that he claims the Scottish Government have given to aviation, but it is worth reminding the House that that is not what Edinburgh and Glasgow airports have said. They were upset that Ministers in Scotland refused to meet them, which they said was “galling” and in “stark contrast” to the UK Government’s approach. Indeed, the Scottish Passenger Agents’ Association said that its industry had been “sacrificed” by the SNP—its word rather than mine. It is important to say that we are supporting the sector, not least by removing these restrictions.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the strategic aviation review. I hope he will accept that there is no point in carrying out a review during omicron and covid—we want to do it as the industry comes out—so that will be forthcoming. He asked a sensible question about continued monitoring, which will happen in two ways. First, he will be familiar with me having said many times at the Dispatch Box when we were in the midst of the pandemic that the UK was carrying out up to 50% of the genomic sequencing in the entire world. That figure is now different, because we have helped and other countries have caught up, so, although we are carrying on our programme, much of that genomic sequencing is happening around the world rather than needing to be done specifically here. Secondly, we have the programme led by the Office for National Statistics that carries on finding out where coronavirus is in the country and the extent to which different variants might be starting to take hold. We can therefore continue to monitor things comprehensively through both genomic sequencing and the covid-19 infection survey of the population.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
May I express my gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for removing all covid-19 international travel restrictions for those coming into the United Kingdom? Will he join me in welcoming the reopening of the south terminal at Gatwick airport on 27 March and the thousands of job vacancies now available and needing to be filled as we recover our industry and our economy?
Grant Shapps
I do not think it is too much of an exaggeration to say that virtually nobody in the House has done more than my hon. Friend to promote the case of the hard-pressed aviation sector during the last two years of the crisis. It is great news that Gatwick’s south terminal will reopen on 27 March; I very much hope to be there for that. I know that he shares my enthusiasm for all the work that carried on during the crisis to aim for jet zero, to help clean up the aviation sector and ensure that, by 2050, we have not only a booming British aviation sector but a cleaner one.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
I am delighted that England is following Norway, Ireland, Hungary and several other countries in lifting all remaining travel restrictions. Will the Secretary of State assure me that when the public inquiry into covid happens, it will have full access to all the various and quite secretive committees that the Government relied on when they imposed those travel restrictions? Many of us believe, and growing evidence suggests, that for countries such as ours, which were never going to have a zero-covid strategy, the draconian travel restrictions did more harm than good.
Grant Shapps
For the sake of completeness, I will mention Ireland, Iceland, Lithuania, Norway and Slovenia, which have either removed or will shortly remove measures to put themselves in the same position. I say “of leading economies” because I am not aware of any other G7 economy that has gone as far as us in scrapping restrictions and making it easier to travel.
The inquiry will be there to learn the lessons from covid, and it is incredibly important that it does so not just in relation to travel but across everything that happened during covid. Of course, we want to learn the lessons because, without learning the lessons of the past, we can never improve things for the future.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I have learned from being in this House that when the Government do something good and well, few Opposition Back Benchers turn up—we have only one today—and the three shadow Ministers have heckled from a sedentary position because they know that the Government have done a good job. Is it not true that the Prime Minister’s leadership by getting the vaccine and unlocking our society has allowed us to have freedom day for travel this Friday? Does the Secretary of State have to sign a piece of paper or lay a statutory instrument before the House? If he just needs to sign a piece of paper, why does he not do so tonight so that we can start tomorrow?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We all remember Margaret Keenan receiving that very first properly approved vaccination in the entire world, and that happened in this country. It was not just that: we also got the vaccination programme out first and, critically, the booster programme out first and showed world leadership. Actually—this is partly in response to the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh); I did not pick up this point—2.6 billion people have received the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccination, so we have made more of a contribution than any other country in the world. It is absolutely right to recognise all of that.
I do not know the technicalities of quite what happens—I imagine that we must sign an SI—but I do know that we need a few days to alert everyone to change the systems for Border Force and ensure that people already away can adjust to the change. However, it is only three more sleeps, is it not? I hope that my hon. Friend can contain himself.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. It is the right thing to do and, as I have said before, freedom works. However, may I press him on his answer to the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) about ensuring that, after a period of having been wound down to deal with fewer passengers, ports of entry are ready to give that warm British welcome to people either returning home or visiting for travel and leisure? I heard a horror story the other day that, at Heathrow terminal 5, e-gates were telling everybody to seek assistance but there was only one official. Will he do everything possible to support our airports and work with the Home Office to ensure that all ports of entry are ready to receive people?
Grant Shapps
I absolutely will do that. I know that Border Force has been working hard, sometimes under difficult conditions. Many people do not realise that every time there was a change in which countries were added or removed or rules changed—there were hundreds of them—that often required not just software but hardware changes. As a passenger put their passport down on an egate, it was reading not only their passport for permission to enter but checking the passenger locator form, their vaccination status and how they had filled in the form—it was doing an awful lot of work behind the scenes. Updates, unfortunately, commonly caused breaks in that system. As far as I know, we were the only country in the world to even attempt anything as ambitious on e-gates—I certainly came across no equivalent in North America or Europe. It is really important that much of that bureaucracy will be removed as that should smooth things out. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), I will discuss Border Force resourcing with the Home Secretary.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I think that everybody in the House will warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement about extra vaccines being distributed around the world. Will he ensure that a list of countries receiving them is put in the Library for us to check? Will he assure me that a good number of very poor Commonwealth countries are prioritised in the programme?
Grant Shapps
It is certainly the case that the vast majority of the vaccinations through Oxford-AstraZeneca have gone to mid and lower-income countries. Many will have been used by Commonwealth countries. I should have answered in detail the point made on that by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh). I will place a note in the House of Commons Library to provide a breakdown of where those have gone and answer the further question about how the 100 million is worked out. But I think all of us in the House, regardless of which side we sit on, can be incredibly proud of this country’s literally global lead in protecting the world against coronavirus.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Axing all the remaining covid restrictions for outgoing travellers will be warmly welcomed by those working in the travel, aviation, airport and aerospace sectors, including my wife and many Gloucester constituents. Those are all areas of expertise and employment across the UK. Does my right hon. Friend share my pride and enthusiasm for the new record-breaking electric aircraft, the Spirit of Innovation, developed at Gloucestershire airport, and the new hydrogen aircraft developed at Kemble airport, also in Gloucestershire, showing that in a county famed for the first ever jet-engined aircraft take-off, we can now focus on an exciting future for travel and aviation at much less cost to the environment?
Grant Shapps
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I do not want to disappoint him or his wife. It is incoming traffic that will have the reduction in bureaucracy. On outgoing, we still encourage people to check with the FCDO. As I pointed out a couple of times, most other countries still have some restrictions. But is he right about that electric aircraft, which is a Rolls-Royce project—the world’s fastest flying electric aircraft being produced right here in the UK? He is. ZeroAvia is producing the world’s first hydrogen aircraft, which is now on its second version, a larger 20-seat aircraft. There is a lot of innovation, backed by £180 million, to assist all this decarbonisation of aviation. It is very exciting and it leads to a very strong future for British aviation.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement.
Quad Bikes
Tuesday 15th March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Quad Bikes Bill 2021-22 View all Quad Bikes Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require quad bike riders on public highways to wear helmets; to make provision about the registration of quad bikes; to make provision about the dangerous and anti-social use of quad bikes; and for connected purposes.
The Bill will promote safe use of road-legal quads and reduce the number of off-road quads on our streets by making the wearing of helmets compulsory, making necessary the installation of vehicle immobilisers, making registration of all quad bikes compulsory and empowering police to remove problem off-road quads from our streets permanently. I thank the many stakeholders who have worked with me on the Bill: West Yorkshire police, the West Yorkshire Deputy Mayor for policing and crime, the Royal College of Policing, the National Farmers Union, Brake, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety.
The constant, loud, piercing drone of quad bikes is an all too familiar sound in many of our towns and cities. These vehicles have important and legitimate uses in agriculture and related industries, but they are tools, not toys, and their careless, reckless and unsafe use on our streets is a menace. My constituents have had enough. Most issues are not caused by road-legal quad bikes, which, like any road vehicle, must be registered, have an MOT and be driven by a responsible adult with a licence and insurance. Instead, our streets are plagued by quads legal only for off-road use, which do not require registration. Most off-road quads are not approved for use on public highways precisely because they do not meet road safety standards. The lack of registration also means that they are harder to trace by police.
The antisocial use of quads centres in cities and the suburbs, but the vehicles used are often stolen from farms. The National Farmers Union sees it as a particular problem and estimates that some 1,100 quad bikes are stolen from farms each year, costing farmers upwards of £3 million. If just a fraction of those end up on public roads, that is hundreds of illegal quads running rampant on our streets. These vehicles are designed for herding animals in fields, not tearing up tarmac in our towns and cities.
Data from West Yorkshire police shows that antisocial quad use is a growing problem. There were over 10,000 reports of antisocial use of quads and bikes in West Yorkshire in 2021, a shocking 42% rise on the previous year.
The problems of antisocial quads are threefold. At the most basic level, they are a disruptive and persistent noise nuisance. Just one antisocial quad rider ripping through a neighbourhood will disturb hundreds and hundreds of residents. That constant noise causes distress to residents and undermines public confidence in our police. They also damage the local landscape, tearing up fields, green spaces, embankments and parks. Only last week, a constituent contacted me about a convoy of no fewer than seven quads racing between families on park space. On more than one occasion, community sports groups in my constituency have had to cancel or postpone matches and training because of damage to their local playing fields from quads. Most seriously, they are a risk to other road users, pedestrians and the drivers themselves. Only last year in Bradford, a man was killed when his quad veered and collided with another vehicle.
I recently spoke with a constituent who told me they had seen a young person on a quad weaving through traffic on two wheels on a busy A road in excess of 40 miles per hour, a danger to every road user and pedestrian nearby. What was the rider’s choice of headwear? Was it a helmet to protect their life? No, it was a balaclava to protect their identity. I propose to make wearing a helmet compulsory for all quad users on public highways. In Northern Ireland, it is already a requirement. Why that is not the case in the rest of the United Kingdom is a mystery. The argument is self-evident: when the worst happens, the results are catastrophic. A quad user is twice as likely as someone in a car to get into an accident in the first place and then is 10 times more likely to be seriously injured or killed. The compulsory wearing of helmets would make the law consistent with that for other similar vehicles.
Police have powers to seize these vehicles, such as under section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for unlicensed or uninsured vehicles, and under section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 for vehicles used antisocially, but they still face an uphill struggle. The police will always prioritise public safety. Where they judge they cannot risk injury to pedestrians, other road users, the rider or their officers, they will not give chase to quads. So to take action, police must link a quad being used antisocially to an owner with an address. That can take hundreds and hundreds of hours of police time, piecing together official reports from members of the public, scouring community intelligence on social media or reviewing CCTV from businesses such as petrol stations for that one frame showing the rider’s face, all to make a strong enough case to act.
That work does get results. For example, in my neighbouring city of Leeds, after a ride out involving over 100 vehicles in 2016, police were able to take action that resulted in 13 convictions, with sentences between 12 months and two years. However, it is labour-intensive and should any one link in the chain break, the police can do little. Yet effective changes can be made to help the police and will reduce the number of illegal quads on our streets. Unlike for cars, the installation of immobilisers is not a legal requirement. That vital piece of technology has been required in all cars since 1998. The device provides an additional layer of security and makes it that much harder for opportunistic thieves to make away with them. By making immobilisers a requirement, we make theft harder and reduce the number of quads getting on to our streets in the first place.
My Bill also proposes extending the registration scheme for licensed road-legal quads to cover all quad bikes, including those allowed for off-road use only. That establishes a clear line of ownership right from the point of sale, which will help police in their inquiries when investigating reports. It means that, once seized, stolen quads can be more easily returned to their rightful owner.
Finally, police will be empowered so that, once they have taken a problem quad off the road, they can make sure it stays off the road. I was astounded to learn from senior police officers that, once a quad has been seized, police have little control over where that vehicle ends up. If it was stolen and its rightful owners can be found, it can be returned, but quads are frequently sold at auction as proceeds of crime. Because of a lack of registration and regulation, once a vehicle is sold, the police are almost powerless to prevent it from ending up right back on the very streets that it has been plaguing, starting the cycle once again. We must break that cycle. The seize and release approach is not working; police must be given the power to seize and destroy nuisance quads, taking them off the streets permanently.
We need to stop seeing these vehicles as toys. If we continue to let them slip through the cracks in legislation, we will fail to protect legitimate owners from needless theft, we will fail to protect residents dealing with chronic noise and we will fail to protect all road users and pedestrians who remain at risk. It is time we brought in measures to provide consistency, protect road users and legitimate owners of quads, and stop the blight of their dangerous and antisocial use on our streets and paths. I commend this motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Judith Cummins, Barbara Keeley, Nick Smith, Graham Stringer, Mrs Sharon Hodgson, Dan Jarvis, Yvonne Fovargue, Charlotte Nichols, Kate Green, Rosie Cooper, Jackie Doyle-Price and Naz Shah present the Bill.
Judith Cummins accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May, and to be printed (Bill 281).
Ukraine
The Minister for Europe and North America (James Cleverly)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the situation in Ukraine.
Seven days ago, President Zelensky inspired us with his address to Parliament. This weekend, he was visiting wounded soldiers in hospital, leading from the front. We owe it to President Zelensky and the people of Ukraine to do our utmost to help them in their brave fight; we owe it to ourselves to stand up for security and stability in Europe; and we owe it to the world to keep the flame of freedom burning and to show that aggression does not pay.
In response to the unprovoked attack, the world has shown immense unity in standing up to Vladimir Putin, but we need to keep up the pressure. Our objective is clear: Putin must lose in Ukraine. We are doing this by cutting off the funding for his war machine, by providing weapons that the Ukrainians need to defend themselves and by isolating Putin on the world stage. The United Kingdom has been at the forefront of the international response, with a tough sanctions package and strong support, including defensive weapons and humanitarian aid. We will now enhance our work with allies to respond to Russia’s aggression.
We need to be strong to get peace. That is why we are building on efforts to cut off the funding for Putin’s war machine through sanctions. Today, I can announce that we will go further than ever before by hitting more than 360 more people complicit with Putin’s regime. They range from former President Dmitry Medvedev and Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu to Putin’s propagandist Maria Zakharova. After today, we will have designated more than 1,000 individuals and entities under our Russian sanctions regime.
We are using our new powers under the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 to maximise impact. That would not have been possible without the extraordinary efforts of colleagues across this Parliament to get the legislation through the House so quickly, which shows our collective determination to lead by example in punishing the Putin regime.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Minister is right that we are sanctioning a lot of people, but actually we name the people who are sanctioned, and then other people do the sanctioning by not engaging with them on a financial basis, not buying or selling properties and all the rest of it. At the moment, it is phenomenally difficult to find out from the Foreign Office sanctions list who is and is not sanctioned. For instance, I gather that it was announced last week that Members of the Duma were sanctioned, but they are still not on the Foreign Office website list, as far as I can see. I wonder whether there is a way of making the information far more readily available to the wider population.
We need to deal not just with the people who have £20 million houses, whom we have all heard of, but with the people who have £750,000 flats in London, bought with Russian dirty money—the many relatives of Abramovich and his ex-partners, for instance. Each one of them needs to be dealt with, and each one of those properties needs to be seized.
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about ensuring that we give due publicity to the people, institutions and entities who have been sanctioned. I will ensure that the Department listens to his suggestion.
In December, we brought our G7 partners together in Liverpool to warn Putin that invading Ukraine would have massive consequences. We have followed through on that pledge. We have worked with our allies to cut off sectors of the Russian economy by targeting its defence companies, trade and transport sector, and by kicking banks out of the SWIFT financial system. We have led the way with our financial sanctions, targeting 10 Russian banks, and we have hit over £300 billion of Russian bank assets. All this amounts to the toughest sanctions package of any country. We will work with all our allies and encourage them to keep ratcheting up their efforts as well.
We will continue to provide lethal military aid to Ukraine. We were the first European country to send defensive weapons; we have already donated more than 3,600 next generation light anti-tank weapons and are now supplying Javelin missiles.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the lighter moments in an otherwise extremely bleak military picture in Ukraine was the destruction of Russian tanks, using—one has to presume—British NLAW missiles?
James Cleverly
My hon. and gallant Friend makes an important point. We have heard anecdotally that Ukrainians are shouting “God save the Queen!” as they fire those weapons at the tanks that have been sent to destroy them. I am very proud that we play an incredibly important part.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I thank the Minister for giving way; it is very courteous of him. Is it not true that part of the reason we are where we are today is the historic long-term running down of our armed forces? The situation today sits very ill with the proposal to reduce the British Army by 10,000 men and women. Finally, we have all read in today’s Telegraph that inflation will reduce the size of the armed forces over the years ahead.
James Cleverly
The sad truth, I think, is that Vladimir Putin has been plotting this expansionist idea of his for quite some time. I do not agree that it is necessarily linked with domestic defence policy in the UK, but we can absolutely be proud that British military technology, assisted by British military training, is helping the Ukrainians in their time of need and in their ferocious defence of their homeland.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has told us that the United Kingdom has taken the lead on our continent in freezing the assets of Russians. During his discussions with representatives of the European Union, have they been able to furnish him with an explanation of why they, as an entity, have failed to keep pace with Britain in that regard?
James Cleverly
I am often encouraged to do a “compare and contrast” between the United Kingdom and our international friends and partners, but the simple truth is that there has been greater, tighter and closer co-ordination in response to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine than I could ever have imagined, and we will continue to work together extremely closely. We are proud of the fact that the UK Government have had a dramatic and detrimental impact on Russia’s finances, choking off Putin’s ability to fund this aggression, but we intend to go further, and we will do so in close co-ordination with those international friends and partners.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
As someone who lost his guts, or at least his lunch, quite a few times when helicopters were having to jig because of the threat of Singer missiles—given to our allies at the time, decades earlier—may I ask whether the Minister can assure us that the Government’s measures are sufficient to ensure that our weapons do not end up on the black market in the hands of the wrong people at a future date? Will he also confirm that our weapons—the NLAWs and other pieces of aggressive equipment—will not end up in the hands of far-right neo-Nazis, many of whom we know to be making their way to Ukraine now from around the world?
James Cleverly
Our priority, and the purpose of the defensive weapon support that we have provided, is to help the Ukrainians to defend themselves against the attacks of Russia. Obviously we hope that this conflict will come to a swift conclusion, but until then we will continue our support for the Ukrainians as they defend themselves. What happens at the end of this conflict, in terms of securing munitions, will be something on which we will work with the Ukraine Government and our national friends and partners, but at the moment our priority, quite rightly, is to help the Ukrainians to defend themselves against Putin’s attack.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I ask my right hon. Friend about this distinction between defensive and offensive weaponry? The fact is that when a friendly nation finds itself under attack, all the weaponry with which we supply it is defensive. I should have thought that if we cannot intervene ourselves—and there are good reasons why we cannot—there is no reason at all why we cannot help the Ukrainians with their airspace problem by facilitating the necessary aircraft deliveries which they have requested.
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend has made an important point about munitions systems being inherently defensive when a country is under attack. He has also made an important point about airspace management, and I will come to that later in my speech. I intend to make some progress now.
Since 2014, we have worked to train more than 22,000 Ukrainian troops under Operation Orbital. As well as helping Ukraine to defend itself from attack on the ground, we must help it to defend itself against attack from the skies. That is why we will be sending more supplies, including Starstreak ground-based air defence anti-aircraft missiles. We and our allies need to do everything possible, within the UN charter on self-defence, to help Ukraine to defend itself, which is why I was with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this morning discussing with and working with our Nordic and Baltic allies to increase defensive support as part of the UK-led joint expeditionary force. We must be robust in supporting our NATO allies living under the shadow of Russian aggression, so the UK, as NATO’s biggest European contributor, is doubling the number of troops in Estonia and Poland.
As Putin inflicts ever greater misery in Ukraine, we continue our humanitarian and economic support. We have pledged almost £400 million, which includes the supply of more than 700,000 medical items directly to Ukraine and more than 500 power generators to keep essential facilities such as hospitals running. We have also brought 21 critically ill Ukrainian children to the UK to receive life-saving cancer treatment. We are providing more humanitarian aid than any other European country. The British people have also risen to the moment by showing their own huge generosity of spirit. In the short time since our homes for Ukraine scheme was launched, more than 80,000 people have signed up for it.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
It may be helpful for my right hon. Friend to know that according to a Sky newsflash, the figure is now more than 100,000.
James Cleverly
That is lovely. It is not usually nice to be wrong at the Dispatch Box, but I am incredibly proud that the figure I quoted, which was accurate a few hours ago when this speech was written, has now been made obsolete by the enormous generosity of spirit of the British people. I think that that shows us at our best. The Disasters Emergency Committee’s appeal has now reached over £150 million, which we are supporting with our largest ever match-funding pledge of £25 million.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I do not doubt the generosity of the people of this country, but I am still worried about the generosity of the Government. May I give the Minister an example? A young Ukrainian family, related to one of my constituents, have thankfully made it into Poland, but although their visa appointment was over a week ago, they are still waiting for the outcome. Meanwhile, their hotel bills are rising and they are even considering returning to Ukraine—to a war zone. How humane is that response from the Government? Can they not make these decisions much more quickly?
James Cleverly
The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and other members of the Government have made it clear that our intention is to be generous and to welcome Ukrainians with open arms. We are trying to facilitate that as quickly as possible, and the Home Secretary has spoken at the Dispatch Box about measures that she has put in place for that purpose. If the hon. Lady will pass on the details of the people whom she has mentioned, we will see what we can do to help, but I assure her that the generosity of spirit of this country will be felt by the Ukrainians who are fleeing persecution and attack from Vladimir Putin.
As well as supporting Ukraine directly, we are deploying our diplomatic efforts internationally. We are rallying the 141 countries that voted to condemn Russia’s actions at the United Nations to do even more. We have seen many of those countries support our sanctions worldwide, from Switzerland to Singapore, and we are working to draw more countries into the orbit of those that are prepared to stand up for the sovereignty of Ukraine. We are working with partners to reduce the economic dependency on Russia across the world, from the Indo-Pacific to Africa and the Gulf, through trade and British international investment. Everything we do will further isolate the Putin regime which has made Russia a global pariah.
Ultimately, we will hold Putin accountable for his crimes. We will work with prosecutors at the International Criminal Court to help them to obtain the information that they need, and we will not relent in our mission to see that justice is done.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend seen the recent reports that the Russian navy is now massing off Odesa in a typical Russian tactical manoeuvre to open a new front? Is this not in fact a new opportunity to demonstrate to the world the unacceptability of Putin’s disgusting war and to invite open and international condemnation of his actions?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to continue working internationally to enhance the coalition of nations that have denounced Putin’s actions and to increase the pressure on him to bring this war to a conclusion rather than opening up another front and increasing the suffering of the people in Ukraine.
We must be realistic that there will be a cost to the UK and to our allies of imposing these tough sanctions, but the cost of doing nothing is so much higher. We saw what happened in 2014 when the free world did not do enough to contain Putin’s aggression. He came back more aggressively, and that is why we cannot allow him to impose a settlement on Ukraine that vindicates his aggression. If we fail to stand up to Putin and fail to support Ukraine in its hour of need, we will live to regret it.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
We know what a successful sanctions regime will look like: withdrawal, peace restored, etc. Who will determine—and when—whether the sanctions policy has worked, and what is the next step thereafter?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is right to draw our attention to that. The simple truth is that the sanctions have to be successful and we have to keep applying the pressure until they are successful.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
On that point, as we mount up the sanctions, we will be freezing more and more oligarchs’ and Russian assets, but we will not be selling them. We are not sequestrating them, so we are going to end up with a pile of assets. Are we at some point going to use those assets for the benefit of the Ukrainian people, or are we just going to wait until the war is over and hand them back, which I do not think would be as popular?
James Cleverly
Ultimately, what we are looking to do with these sanctions is choke off the supply of funds for Putin’s war machine. We have to be very focused on what the sanctions are for. This is about bringing this conflict to a conclusion.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
Just a single point on sanctions: what action will we take when people break those sanctions on Russia and take supplies? I am thinking particularly of the crude oil being taken by India. What action should we take in those circumstances against people who are still supporting Putin, with his money flowing into the country?
James Cleverly
Ultimately, the enforcement of our sanctions regime is a task for Her Majesty’s Treasury. We will of course work across Government and internationally to ensure that the sanctions packages are robust and have the desired effect of ending this war in Ukraine. That is why the UK is working so hard and that is why, together with our allies and partners, we will ensure that Putin loses in Ukraine.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Three weeks ago, the world was changed forever. Vladimir Putin’s barbaric invasion marked the start of a crime of aggression against the Ukrainian people, but it was also the beginning of an assault on the fundamental aims of post-war Europe: peace, freedom and national sovereignty. After countries on our continent murdered one another on an industrial scale in two world wars in one century, after a cold war that threatened our planet with nuclear extinction and after horrific conflicts in the Balkans, we established an era of relative security in Europe. With the vicious tyrant in the Kremlin now shaking that all about, Ukrainians have defended their homeland with extraordinary courage and determination. Russian forces, fed a diet of propaganda by their Government, might have expected to be greeted as liberators. They have instead encountered not just the dogged and skilful resistance of the Ukrainian army but the courage of ordinary men and women willing to stand in the path of Russian tanks.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I completely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, but do those on the Labour Front Bench accept that, for too long, the west has basked in the peace dividend following our victory in the cold war? Democracy needs nurturing and protecting, because sometimes it is a fragile concept. Does he therefore agree that, having taken that for granted in the past, we need to do more to build our hard and soft power to ensure that in the coming battle for democracy, it is those who believe in the concept who actually win through?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman is completely right. After Georgia in 2008, after Crimea, after Donbas and after Syria, there is now deep reflection in the western community on what we could and should have done. It is important to remember that in a democracy such as ours, soft power always plays a part. That is why we should never undermine the BBC, the British Council, the role of our foreign diplomats in this endeavour or the importance of international development. We have soft power, but he is right to say that we also have armed, hard power, and we should be very cautious about the cuts that we have made to our armed defences. Sadly, Putin has deployed only hard power—or aggressive power in terms of his cyber-power—but we have the whole arsenal and we should reflect deeply on the complacency that has crept in over the last few years.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am grateful also for the unity that has been shown across this House in our response to what Putin is doing in Ukraine, but I wonder, given that he referred to Syria, whether on reflection he regrets the stance taken by the Labour party in this Chamber when chemical weapons were used in Syria and Labour chose not to support the then Government’s position that we should take action alongside the Americans.
Mr Lammy
I entirely understand why the former Prime Minister raises that issue. She will know, too, that there is deep reflection on Capitol Hill and in Washington on what happened at that moment in time. This is a long curve; it is one that goes back to 2008. It is not just about that singular moment, but I understand why she raises it.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
Can I go back to what the right hon. Gentleman said about soft power? He said that Putin was deploying only hard power. That is absolutely true in Ukraine, but for too long, large amounts of Russian soft power, by way of cash, have been flooding into various parts of the UK—into culture, universities, politicians and businesses. Is it not the case that we should pay a great deal of attention to ensuring that that cannot happen again?
Dr Julian Lewis
Could I urge colleagues on both sides of the House not to bring the Syria vote into this dispute? The Syria vote hinged on the fact that it was proposed to depose another Arab dictator without regard to the nature of the extremists who would have taken over. We did exactly that sort of thing when we armed all sorts of groups in Afghanistan, and that did not work out too well for America either. This is a separate issue and we should not confuse the two.
Mr Lammy
The Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee gives the right context of the debate, as I remember it, at that time.
Ukrainians have defended their homeland with extraordinary courage and determination, and Russian forces, fed a diet of propaganda by their Government, may have expected to be greeted as liberators but have instead encountered dogged and skilful resistance from the Ukrainian army. Putin’s hopes for a brief campaign have crashed against the rocks of Ukrainian defiance.
That courageous resistance, however, has been met with growing brutality, with siege laid to cities, war crimes committed and civilians forced to flee, but let us look at the result of Putin’s war. There have been Russian casualties on a scale Putin could not have predicted. There is horrific suffering among the Ukrainian people who Putin claims are Russians’ brothers and sisters. Ukraine’s President has become an emblem of democracy standing up to dictatorship. The Russian economy is in freefall, the west is united, NATO is strengthened, Germany has announced a massive and historic increase in its defence budget, and even non-NATO states such as Sweden and Finland, which I visited last week, are exporting weapons to Ukraine. Russia stands isolated at the United Nations, condemned by more than 140 nations, while thousands show great courage in protesting against this war in Putin’s increasingly authoritarian police state.
This House is united in saying that defensive military support to Ukraine should continue. It is right that we help Ukraine defend itself, and the Government have Labour’s full backing in providing such support, including the new anti-tank and possible anti-air weapons systems announced last week. We need to get them into Ukraine as soon as possible, as they will be essential to maintaining Ukraine’s use of the sky. Last week the Government said they had taken the decision to explore a donation of Starstreak anti-aircraft missiles to Ukraine. Has that decision been made?
Mr Baron
I apologise to the House for intervening on the right hon. Gentleman a second time. I completely agree with what he just said, but there is a balance to be sought between offering essentially defensive weaponry and offering offensive weaponry, which is why some Conservative Members were concerned about talk of a no-fly zone or, indeed, the donation of Polish MiG jets to Ukrainian forces.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in this age when soft power is important—the old adage is “talk softly but carry a big stick”—we should not consider any further cuts to our soft power capability, including the British Council?
Mr Lammy
I entirely agree.
From the beginning, this House has stood united in support of Ukraine’s sovereignty and against Putin’s aggression, so I welcome the news of additional sanctions. We support tough measures against Putin’s cronies and cutting Russia out of the economic system, but let us be clear that we were promised sanctions immediately after the invasion of Ukraine. Since then the Government have been playing catch-up.
The EU sanctioned members of the Russian state Duma on 23 February. Why did the UK not do the same until 11 March? I wrote to the Foreign Secretary on 27 February calling for a ban on the export of luxury goods to Russia. Why did the Government only do that today? The United States sanctioned Oleg Deripaska four years ago. Why did the British Government catch up only five days ago?
The Government’s delayed sanctions gave Putin and his cronies a get-out-of-London-free card. Roman Abramovich, who was sanctioned at the same time as Deripaska, is just one example. Because of Ministers’ tardiness, Abramovich was able to fly his jet out of Stansted and sail one of his superyachts to Montenegro, with his second boat not far behind. As the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) observed, that is £1 billion of assets that have left the United Kingdom.
For too many days during this war, the Government have been behind our EU and US allies on individual sanctions. They have been behind the Opposition on sanctioning banks in Belarus as well as Russia. They have been behind us on sanctioning the energy sector and on closing the loopholes that let Putin’s criminal cronies off the hook.
Alec Shelbrooke
I accept the political point that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but I am sure he recognises that we were first out of the traps on banking sanctions and that we led on trying to remove Russia from SWIFT. It is simply not fair to paint a picture that we have been following the EU and the US. There has been an international response in different areas, and it has come at different speeds.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way.
The right hon. Gentleman is factually incorrect on the speed at which the UK applied sanctions compared with others, but does he agree that it is now important to start planning for Ukraine’s reconstruction? Somebody has to clear up this mess, and it will need some sort of Marshall plan. Does he agree that the sanctioned assets are ultimately fair game to be seized and used to rebuild Ukraine? In that respect, will he differentiate oligarchs and kleptocrats? The assets of the latter are clearly fair game, and the assets of the former may well be fair game.
Chris Bryant
I asked the Minister about seizing assets, and this follows from the point made by the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). If we do not seize assets, we will not be able to redeploy them towards the reconstruction of Ukraine. I suspect the Government will need further primary legislation to do that, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the House would stand ready to do that if necessary? There will otherwise not be a Marshall plan for Ukraine.
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend makes a good point about the historical enforcement of sanctions in this country, and of course the Opposition will stand ready to assist the Government if and hopefully when that legislation comes forward.
For more than a decade the Government have refused to clean up dirty Russian money. For any change to happen, Ministers have had to be dragged through the Lobby by Members on both sides of the House to rush through legislation that should have been passed years ago. We welcome the measures in the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, which was passed yesterday, although many are too weak.
The job is only half done. We must complete the process of shutting down the London laundromat and ending the impunity of Russian oligarchs and the corrupt elites and criminals from across the world who use Britain as a base for hiding stolen money. That means completing Companies House reform, closing loopholes that allow overseas territories to be used as offshore tax havens to shield dirty cash from all around the world, and effectively enforcing our laws, as has just been suggested.
This war has caused the gravest humanitarian crisis on our continent in decades and the biggest movement of people in Europe since the second world war. Almost 3 million people have fled, the vast majority of them women and children, with little more than the clothes on their back.
Yesterday I met the Romanian ambassador, who told me of the efforts under way to help and support those fleeing the war. I pay tribute to communities throughout Europe, especially in Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary and Moldova. Britain has a proud tradition of supporting those in need. Quite simply, we must do our part, but Government bureaucracy is still standing between desperate Ukrainians and the generosity and good will of the British public.
The war in Ukraine is a seismic shift. Our short-term responses must be components of a longer-term strategy. We must match deterrence with diplomacy, standing firm and resolute in defence of our allies while minimising any risks of a direct NATO-Russia confrontation. Avoiding miscalculation and miscommunication, we must have a clear-eyed assessment of how this war could be brought to an end so that a free and sovereign Ukraine can be rebuilt for her people. NATO is rightly avoiding direct conflict with Russia, but that means that the costs of this appalling war are being felt almost entirely by the Ukrainian people. Putin deserves absolute defeat in Ukraine and the Ukrainian people deserve absolute peace. So we must play our part in pushing for a negotiated settlement, a deal for peace based on terms accepted by the democratically elected Government of Ukraine. We must have not only strong and effective sanctions, but a clear notion of how they can be used to bring about the outcomes we seek.
While we push for an end to Putin’s monstrous aggression, as well as for peace, democracy and freedom for Ukraine, we must remain open to the Russian people. They did not choose this war, so we must expose Putin’s fabrications, distinguish between the Russian regime and Russia, and bolster the work of the BBC World Service and others to communicate with authoritarian states, as has been said. We must revise our defence plans for this new era, scrap the planned cuts to the Army and protect our energy security with a green energy sprint, to move decisively away from fossil fuels and on to clean, cheap, home-grown renewables instead. That will end dependency on Russia, accelerate our path towards net zero and cut off finance for Putin’s war machine.
Simon Hoare
The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned a negotiated outcome. What we will all want to see is Russia withdraw entirely from all parts of Ukraine—no negotiation, just withdrawal. Will he confirm that that is his position and that of his party?
Mr Lammy
Of course Putin must withdraw, and I said that this should be based on the views of the democratically elected Ukrainian Government and their people.
It is rare that I agree with much at all that comes out of the mouth of our current Prime Minister, but I agree with the opening of his comment piece for today’s The Daily Telegraph, as the west did make a “terrible mistake” in letting Putin “get away” with his “act of violent aggression” in Ukraine in 2014. But the Prime Minister should also apologise for his own apologism, because in 2016 he foolishly blamed the EU for the illegal annexation of Crimea. In the absence of the Prime Minister, I am sure the Minister will agree that that was dangerously wrong, and that only Putin and his rogue regime can be blamed for these illegal acts of war.
The Prime Minister has made mistakes in advance of this war. He should apologise, too, for dining with an ex-KGB agent in April 2018, just two days after attending a high-level NATO summit that focused on Russia, as well as for foolishly declaring that the
“concepts of fighting big tank battles on European land mass ... are over”
as recently as November 2018. In the face of illiberalism, aggression and dictatorship, now is the time for us to reassert our belief in liberal democracy; reiterate our support for human rights at home, as well as abroad; reinforce our unshakable commitment to our NATO allies; and proclaim our belief in multilateral institutions, such as the UN, that are designed to build peace and prosperity, based on the rule of law. Because those who seek to divide us have these in their sights.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. As the House can see, a lot of people wish to catch my eye during this debate, and we want to get as many in as we can. I am not going to introduce a time limit at this moment, but if everybody could focus on speaking for about eight minutes, which is generous compared with the time allowed in most debates we have, at least we will be able to give everybody a fair share. I call Theresa May.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for his speech and, as I said earlier, I thank everybody from across this House for the unity we are showing in the face of the heinous further invasion of Ukraine by Russia. There is a very clear message from this House and this country: Putin has brought war to mainland Europe; he has invaded a sovereign, independent country; and he is killing innocent men, women and children whose only wish is to live in freedom and free from Russian aggression. There should also be a clear message from this House that those responsible for initiating and prosecuting this war will be held accountable for their war crimes.
As I look around the Chamber, I am sure that there are going to be many speeches on a number of matters relating to the war in Ukraine: security and defence matters, military matters, sanctions and refugees. Indeed, such references have been made in the two opening speeches. I want to focus on one issue on which light has not been shone so far and where I have a particular interest. I say to the Minister that this matter is primarily for the Home Office, but I hope that he and the other Ministers on the Front Bench will be able to take these messages to the Home Secretary and ensure that they are taken on board and that action is taken.
The issue I want to raise is that of the trafficking of Ukrainian people, particularly unaccompanied Ukrainian child refugees, at the border areas. That is happening in Poland and in other countries to which Ukrainian refugees are fleeing. This issue has been raised with me by two non-governmental organisations that work globally on tackling modern slavery: Walk Free and the Global Fund to End Modern Slavery. It is a sad reflection on human nature that at the very point where these women and children are fleeing Ukraine for their safety in order to find refuge elsewhere, the criminal gangs have moved in to make money from the trafficking of what they consider to be yet another commodity—human beings. These gangs are attempting to make money out of this human distress and vulnerability.
The human traffickers moved in within a day or so of refugees starting to come across the borders. We have seen the photographs of the borders and we know that the numbers are such that the situation can be chaotic. It is very difficult; there are many unaccompanied children coming over. They are not necessarily orphans, but they may not have their family with them, and some of these children do not have papers. I understand that the Polish authorities are making valiant efforts to find papers and photograph children to find some sort of record of them in order to identify them. However, we know that there is no database and no real means of ensuring that identification and tracking of what is happening to those children. It has been suggested that a database is needed, and I know that efforts are being made to encourage the tech companies to help, and to do so quickly, by creating a database that can identify and track these children, to make sure that they are not unidentified and there is not the opportunity for the criminal gangs to take them away without anybody knowing that they have been there or where they are being taken. So my first ask for Ministers is whether they will now work urgently with UN agencies, the European Commission and the tech companies to find a resolution to this issue, to put in a place a system that means there can be no unidentified children left to the mercy of the traffickers.
My second ask is on the need to deal with the criminal gangs. Europol and Interpol almost certainly need to be involved, as do the various police and law enforcement agencies throughout Europe. There will be a key role for our National Crime Agency, which I believe should take the lead. I hope that if it has not already done so, the Home Office will take the issue up with the National Crime Agency and make sure that it has the resources it needs to deal with the issue. I also hope that the NCA and the Home Office recognise the urgency and importance of the issue of the trafficking of children.
My first point was on the need to reduce the opportunities for traffickers and my second was on the need to identify, catch and prosecute the traffickers, but we must also recognise that some children will be prey to the traffickers and some of them may be brought across borders and into the United Kingdom. It is possible to identify children who have been trafficked when they are brought through the border, so my third ask is for the Home Office to ensure that Border Force recognises the possibility of trafficked Ukrainian children being brought across the border and into the country, to reinforce its guidelines for Border Force staff on how to identify them, and to ensure that those staff are aware of this potential issue and are vigilant in dealing with it at the border.
As the Minister has outlined, the United Kingdom is in many ways rightly supporting Ukraine and putting pressure on Russia to stop its illegal invasion, but we have to look beyond the obvious. I suggest that the opportunities for traffickers in border areas is not the obvious but is, sadly, something that will lead to considerable further human misery. I trust that the Government will take the issue on board and act with urgency.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Three weeks ago, when we looked at the Russian troops amassing on Ukraine’s borders, none of us could have imagined the horror that we were going to witness. To see war crimes being committed, to see cities being levelled, and to see civilians being surrounded and stuck in basements without food, water or medicine—these are scenes that none of us expected. We certainly did not expect to see them in a sovereign, independent, modern-thinking country such as Ukraine.
I pay tribute to the people of Ukraine—the House is absolutely united on this. We pay tribute to President Zelensky and to the people for the bravery and resilience they have shown and continue to show in the face of the onslaught. I also pay tribute to the countries that have opened their borders to the refugees, and particularly to Romania, Hungary, Moldova and Poland. I have probably missed out some countries that are doing great work with refugees, but those are the countries into which refugees are initially crossing over.
We have to remember that this is not the first time that Ukraine has met the force of Russia. One hundred years ago, when Russia wanted to impose its will on the Ukrainian people, it enforced famine on Ukraine. Millions died during the Holodomor. We are already seeing the bodies pile up in this conflict. We need to do what we can and I fully support the lethal military aid that the UK is providing. It is crucial to Ukraine’s response.
I wish to focus my comments on the refugee crisis, which is the issue in which most of our constituents feel most invested but in respect of which, in many ways, they feel most helpless. On Friday, the Home Secretary wrote to MPs about the UK’s humanitarian response. Unfortunately, nothing in that letter reflected the scale or seriousness of this crisis; rather, it was a list of hoops that refugees would have to jump through. Frankly, it entirely lacked compassion. Let me read the House one sentence that stood out:
“I have two overarching obligations: to meet my first responsibility of keeping the British people safe and to meet their overwhelming demand that we do all we can to help Ukrainians.”
There was nothing about our need to help Ukrainian refugees directly. Even if I take that sentence at face value, it contains this idea of keeping British people safe and supporting Ukrainian refugees—two things that are not contradictory. There is no reason why we cannot do both.
We have to be clear that it is not British people who are being bombed out of their homes, who are seeing mothers and babies killed in maternity hospitals, or who are seeing families lying dead at the side of a road. It is not British people in Mariupol who have run out of food, water and medicine; whose homes have been obliterated by the Russian bombardment; and who now are holed in, surrounded and unsure of their fate.
I am not naive, and neither are my colleagues; we know that there is a threat to the security of the United Kingdom. But the threat is not from mothers running with babies in their arms. It is not from children who have had to leave without their family. The threat is already here. It is in multi-million pound properties scattered across the City of London. It is in oligarchs funding certain members of this Government. In fact, it is sitting along the corridor from us right now. If Russia wants to infiltrate, it already has done so, so let us get serious about our response. We need to act quickly, and quick action does not mean lengthy visa applications. In fact, I find the word “visa” particularly troubling when we are talking about refugees. Refugees do not need a visa; they need compassion.
Although I welcome the shift from the Government in the Homes for Ukraine scheme, the scheme is asking individuals to shoulder the responsibility, even to the point of identifying individual refugees—selecting the family that you fancy. This should not be up to individuals to co-ordinate; it is madness. I have been inundated with correspondence from constituents who wish to help, but how do they connect with refugees? I certainly do not know and neither do they. It has to be co-ordinated by Government, and it has to be fully co-ordinated with the devolved Governments and local authorities. It is not an individual problem and there cannot be an individual solution.
As an aside, I wish to direct my next comments directly at journalists. Disturbingly, some of us have now been asked by journalists whether we are offering our own homes to refugees. That is not appropriate. I do not put anybody on the spot, whether they be constituents, family members, or Conservative Members, to ask them what they can do to support refugees—as if it is some sort of kindness test—and neither should journalists. I do not know the personal circumstances of most Members here. I do not know whether they live in a mansion, or in a studio flat. I do not know whether they have children or caring responsibilities that would make things different. I do not know anything. It is none of my business, and, frankly, it is none of the business of journalists either. Although I might find myself on a different page to some Conservative Members in terms of the humanitarian response, I will not be asking anyone that question.
Let me also say that £350 to host someone—many people would host without money, by the way—is a cheap way of doing things. What that does not do is fund things, such as specialised trauma counselling. What it does not do is look at support services that will be required for children who have seen things that no child should see.
Simon Hoare
Up until that point, I was 110% with the hon. Lady, but my understanding from what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities said yesterday was that £350 was the payment to the host family or household. All the other Departments, whether it was mental health, education, other health and so on, would all be having additional funds in order to meet those requirements. She makes absolutely the right point, but she arrives at the wrong conclusion.
Carol Monaghan
If that is the case, great, but we need to know; we need to know what the money is and how it is being given out. If a local authority is taking people on, we need to know how much they will be getting. There are many local authorities that are still not receiving money for supporting refugees, including my local authority in Glasgow. We need to know that there is money to provide specialist services as well as money for host families.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Will one of the Ministers on the Front Bench help us here? My clear understanding was that Ukrainian refugees who come here will all be able to work immediately, will all be able to claim benefits immediately, will be able to have complete access to NHS services, and will all be able to get education. There is probably more to it. Would someone from the Front Bench nod, because it is really important that all our constituents understand that this is an incredibly generous package of help for people who badly deserve it?
Carol Monaghan
If Ukrainian refugees have access to all those services, that is great—but those services cost money, so local authorities must be supported with the finances to provide that.
I have a list of asks. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) spoke about trafficking, which has not been talked about enough. We know where the main exit points are from Ukraine. We need to be in there, working with organisations on the ground such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Red Cross, to take people directly from those crossing points. There should be no opportunity, or at least we should minimise any opportunity, for traffickers to gain access to those who are already incredibly vulnerable. We need to transport people directly from there. It should not be a case of their having to get to Calais or anywhere else.
I ask the Government to work directly with devolved Governments to identify both capacity for supporting refugees and gaps in services. I have talked already about trauma counselling. We need to know how we are going to support properly those coming here. For example, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) mentioned the ability to work. We must look at fast-tracking professional qualifications so that doctors and teachers can come in and work, and use the qualifications they have. In the case of teachers, in many instances they will be able to help Ukrainian children who are coming in and need language support.
Finally, we must look at examples of what other countries are doing. Let us look at what Ireland has done, for example: first, it has got people in quickly, but it has also looked at how it can utilise the skills that are coming into the country and how it can integrate people. We need to look at the best practice being displayed in other countries, rather than—as was reported—criticising their response. History will judge us on how we respond. We are three weeks in; it should not be another three weeks before we see anything.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that the priority is getting people over here, and once they are here we can start looking into professional qualifications, skills and integration? We just need to get them out of Poland and Ukraine, get them over here and then we can take those things further.
Carol Monaghan
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman: we should get them here, and then in a few weeks’ time we can look at the other things. However, the easiest way to get them here is to waive the visa requirements. In the past, Britain was a haven. In the 1940s, we saw the very best of this country. Let us not find ourselves on the wrong side of history this time.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
Ukraine is Europe and Europe is Ukraine. I am under no illusion that the incredibly brave defence and sacrifices being made by the Ukrainian people against Russian aggression and barbarism is nothing less than a sacrifice on our behalf. While Ukrainian sacrifice is about defence of their land and their homes, for us their sacrifice is not about territory; it is a sacrifice being made by Ukrainians in defence of our democratic values, our peaceful existence, our western cultures and the post war non-violent settlement that we have enjoyed for so long and come to take for granted. All those things are now challenged by Russia’s totally unsupportable actions.
To lay the blame at the door of an unhinged Russian President or his criminal gang is easy, but it is not adequate. The causes of this disaster are long in the making and are painful for us in the west, because they show up weaknesses in our own political systems. In retrospect, we in the free west massively misunderstood the nature and implications of the demise of the Soviet empire. We assumed that that empire and its power elites would somehow disappear—that they would jump to western values, markets and regulation, and that they would demilitarise. We relaxed and took down our guard. We demilitarised, based on some vacant concept of the peace dividend and the ultimate victory of liberal democracy, and we hoped, with little justification, that Russia would become just like us. Most people actually welcomed President Putin, who in the early days made a play against corruption—that is, until the huge scale of his own corruption was realised. Then the west adopted an apologist attitude. Little was made of Putin’s viciousness in Chechnya, perhaps because that suited the western narrative at the time. The invasion of Georgia in 2008 went largely unnoticed in the west, even though it established a method of interference, fake causation and brutal attack that we have now seen repeatedly used by Russia in Crimea and in Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk and Luhansk.
For those of us who have closely followed these events over the past decade, it has been a very frustrating period. Even when Russia attacked people in this jurisdiction, indeed using radioactive and nerve agent weapons, we reacted only in the most measured of ways, and yet the signs and the patterns—the lack of care for our values, the irrationality, the barbarism and the cynical geopolitical manipulation tactics—were always there. If there is one thing that comes out of this before others, it is that we must view our relationship with Russia on the basis of what it is, not what we would want it to be. Personally, I am horrified and disgusted by Russia—but I am not surprised.
We must recognise that Russia is quite content not only to use force but also to start using it on a much lower provocation level than us. So yes, even if we do not directly fight Russia, we must continue to provide the Ukrainians with all the military assistance they need. If they also need missiles to defend against planes, they should get them. If they need more anti-tank weapons, they should get them. If we need also to institute an urgent review of what military staff and equipment we and NATO will need in the event of Russian aggression continuing in the way it has been doing, we must do it. There must be no more weakness and no more ignoring threats.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I thank my very good friend for allowing me to intervene. The real problem the military have now is that the anti-aircraft missiles cannot go high enough, so they really need MiG-29s. There are pilots there that can fly them, and there are MiG-29s within the NATO alliance; we have seen the Polish ones. Let us do all we can to try to give them MiG-29s so that they can go up and get the aircraft that are beyond the reach of anti-aircraft missiles.
Mr Djanogly
My right hon. Friend makes a great intervention. I absolutely agree that we should be doing everything we can to assist the Poles to get those planes to our friends in Ukraine.
If Russia is not prepared to live by our western rules and actually uses them against us, then we must remove it from our economic system. It has become clear that the west acting collectively has the ability to send Russia back to the economic dark ages and a barter society, if we have the political will to do that. Recent sanctions rounds and implicit western unity in this regard, not least the banning of Russian banks from the SWIFT system, have been heartening and often indeed led by our Government.
The further list of sanctions today, taking numbers, as the Minister said, to over 1,000 individuals, is welcome and impressive. Having said that, I do feel that if we had cracked down on Russian intransigence after its invasion of Georgia—which, by the way, Russia still partly occupies—we would have stopped much later pain in the west.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
As my hon. Friend knows, I had the honour of meeting the chairman of the Committee on European Integration of the Parliament of Georgia in Paris at the conference a few days ago. Does he recall me saying that she said that Georgia has been warning about this for nearly 20 years now?
Mr Djanogly
It has indeed, as I can say from a lot of first-hand evidence.
Sanctions against individuals will play an important role here. I saw how the Government were really getting it when they extended the Aeroflot sanctions to private jets. My next suggestion, as I have told the Minister before, would be to ban Russian yachts and planes from getting insurance. Sanctioning leads to asset freezes, so the Government will be left holding millions of pounds-worth of houses, boats and other assets, but what happens next? Will these assets be sequestrated and used for the benefit of Ukraine’s rebuilding, or will they be held to be returned to oligarchs after the war? The latter option may not be so popular, but it might be legally correct if we do not legislate further on this matter.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument on the use of sanctions and their importance abroad. Does he not agree that their use is also important at home? We are seeing dirty Russian money stolen off the Russian people being used by Putin in deliberate acts to undermine our national security, to silence voices in our country, to intimidate journalists and to disrupt the procedures of our courts. Does my hon. Friend not see that as a direct assault on the British people, being brought and paid for by Putin’s friends, with money stolen off the Russian people?
Mr Djanogly
Yes, indeed, and in every regard. I am very pleased that we are now addressing that. Many have addressed the question of helping Ukrainian refugees. I do not have time to go into that in detail today, other than to say that we need to be generous to these poor souls to the greatest extent that we can.
Finally, but no less importantly, we should now be preparing a significant Marshall-type plan for Ukraine. Once Russia is out of Ukraine, which must be the only outcome we can believe in, Russia should know that as much as it will be humbled by our sanctions, we shall also help to rebuild Ukraine and to put Ukraine into a better economic situation than it is in now. The days of pandering to Russia are over. The suffering of the Ukrainian people, of the Georgian people and of others, including Russians demonstrating on behalf of us all, must not go unrecognised. We must keep up this action.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Nobody could fail to be moved by the images of Ukraine that we have been seeing on our screens for days now—the destruction, the death and the millions of refugees. It is right that we are in this Chamber discussing Ukraine at further length. None of us can know how long this conflict will last, but we do know that there is already a severe refugee crisis with the potential of literally millions of victims.
A number of Members on both sides of the House have already given vent to their frustrations at the Government’s response. Members have spoken about the Calais visa processing centre, which does not exist, and the Lille processing centre, which may as well not exist, because its whereabouts cannot be divulged. Instead, I will focus on the Government’s new scheme. The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) yesterday called it a “DIY asylum scheme”, and she is right. It is the responsibility of Governments and states to ensure that the legal rights of those seeking asylum are upheld. It should not be dependent on the generosity of the people of Britain.
The scheme that has been announced is something of a curate’s egg—good in parts. Let me begin by praising those parts of the scheme that are commendable. The Secretary of State told the House yesterday that the scheme would begin with people with known connections to Ukraine and then be widened out, and that is sensible. There is a stipulation that accommodation is made available for at least six months. On the face of it, that is a sensible precaution—nobody wants to see vulnerable refugees moved from pillar to post—but it does highlight a structural problem with the scheme to which I will return.
It is a very good thing and correct that under this new scheme, refugees will be allowed to live and work in the UK for up to three years and receive full and unrestricted access to benefits, healthcare, employment and other support. Some of us have long argued that that should be the position for all refugees and asylum seekers, wherever their country of origin. The current position, where some of the most vulnerable people in this country are kept dangling with vouchers and minimal income, is itself inhumane and a recipe for exploitation of all kinds. It is costly and bureaucratic to run, and it demeans those we are supposed to help. The arrangements for the Ukrainians should be a precedent for the treatment of all asylum seekers, not an exception.
Clive Lewis
Does my right hon. Friend have any idea why Conservative Members might want to have a different approach to refugees fleeing Ukraine and refugees fleeing Afghanistan, Syria and other countries?
Ms Abbott
My hon. Friend tempts me; perhaps it is the case that it is easier to be humane with refugees who look like us.
In the first instance, the Government tried to apply the visa system to refugees, which is wrong in principle. Visas are discretionary for any Government and any Government are within their rights to limit or withhold visas, but that is not the case for refugees who have a right to seek asylum under international law. It is a category error to treat, or attempt to treat, refugees in that way because it breaches international law in principle and it is unjust. Yet with the new scheme, we have an asylum system in which, essentially, the responsibility for refugees has been outsourced; it is a DIY scheme, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan put it. That cannot be right. It is one thing to harness the generosity of the British public but quite another to leave vulnerable refugees waiting and hoping because their only chance of a decent life here depends on private generosity.
I remind the House that that model of community sponsorship has been used before for the 2014 group of Syrian refugees. By 2017, however, there were only 12 schemes across the whole country, six of which were in London. We know from the attempt to use community sponsorship for Syrian refugees that there are issues that need to be resolved: there needs to be strong local authority support, because when the community sponsorship ends, the local authority will have to provide housing and support; we need a better structure than we had in relation to the Syrian refugees; we need better planning and funding; and we need to be clear what happens when the community sponsorship comes to an end. It is not clear to me how outsourcing the reception of asylum seekers in that way meets our treaty obligations or whether the Government could be suspected of trying to shirk them.
I will also mention the contrast between the stated willingness to help Ukrainian refugees fleeing war and the approach to no less terrified victims of other wars, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen. They were wars and conflicts that the Government and their allies had a role in and that caused vast destruction and loss of life. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees says that there are still more than 9 million Iraqi refugees worldwide, yet there are currently only 20,000 in this country. Whatever the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities may say, that is not generous and it is not even close to being proportionate.
The Government need to think through their proposals. They need to do more and much better and to abandon the notion of visas for refugees. There may have to be rudimentary security checks, but to make refugees, to whom we have a legal obligation, go through all the red tape of a visa application is wrong and does not meet the Government’s responsibilities in principle. The Government need to do more and do better. The British people have shown the way with their generosity and the Government need to step up and meet their responsibilities to refugees, not just in words but in practice.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
The situation in Ukraine is terrifying and alarming. This appalling assault on a democratic sovereign state must end in failure for President Putin, but I fear there is much worse to come.
Success or failure for Putin could leave us with an unprecedented series of risks. He would become emboldened from a successful campaign that would give him confidence and expose other neighbouring states to the same fate. The risks that stem from failure for Putin are also frightening, as his frustration at the heroic bravery of the Ukrainian forces could lead to an escalation of the conflict to terrifying levels. We are aware of President Putin’s record with chemical weapons in Syria, we have seen his attack on Europe’s largest nuclear power station, and two days ago we saw the use of stand-off munitions landing less than 20 miles from the Ukrainian border with Poland.
The situation is set to get worse. The west needs to respond to the fast-moving picture with whatever intervention is necessary and be prepared for the domestic challenges that will ensue. United and severe action taken by allied nations will make a significant difference over time. Each country has played a major part in the areas where it can have the greatest impact. The UK’s contribution has been significant, particularly in providing necessary arms, but more work can be done in that area.
The scale of the UK’s sanctions, freezing of assets and financial penalties is among the most severe of any nation, with more than £250 billion of bank assets frozen—more than by any other country in the world—as well as action on the international payment facility, SWIFT. Some 500 of Russia’s high-value individuals have been sanctioned, in addition to scores of oligarchs, and their homes and other luxury assets seized. Although we use only a small amount of Russian oil and gas, it is right that they will be phased out as soon as possible, along with bans on technical goods, the sale of assets owned in Russia and the sanctioning of Russian politicians. The Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act will make it easier to intervene and yesterday the Secretary of State announced the welcome, limitless sponsorship programme to enable more refugees to come to the UK—I will return to that.
All these measures are important and will make a significant difference over time, but we must recognise that doing the right thing—offering support over time and in the long term—will have a domestic impact in the UK and around the world. Nothing compares to the experiences felt in Ukraine, but we will need to be ready for the consequences in access to food and supplies, higher inflation and a significant hit to our living standards in the United Kingdom.
I believe the public are ready for that. The generosity shown in offering accommodation to Ukrainian families is a heart-warming example of the nation coming together in response to a crisis in Europe. During the second world war, major sacrifices were made domestically, in addition to the direct war effort. Thankfully, the impact of the conflict in Ukraine will be less severe in the UK, but there will still be an impact. We need to be straight with the public and come together as a nation, as we have at other times of crisis.
I ask that the Prime Minister consider making a statement to the nation to highlight our need to act internationally, to prepare us for the potential impact locally and to say that we have to come together. We should not underplay the very real challenges and sacrifices ahead of us, but as we meet them we must consider that we are very lucky compared with people in Ukraine who face grave risks.
My final comments relate to the excellent sponsorship programme that was announced yesterday. The delays have clearly caused challenges and frustrations, but the scheme’s implementation must be our focus, and I hope the Opposition will recognise that we are in a time of crisis and need to come together. The public response has been humbling and quite fantastic. We need to prepare for the fact that Ukrainian families could be with us for some time, and we will rightly continue to give them all necessary support.
The only experience we have had in recent times has been of supporting Syrian refugees, but I want to highlight, among all of the well wishes and positive statements made by local authorities and individuals in this House and beyond, an example in my constituency. Two brilliant community groups, Croeso Cowbridge and Croeso Llantwit—Welcome Cowbridge and Welcome Llantwit—came together to sponsor families from Syria. This was done in response to local political leaders calling on people to come together, but the preparation, along with the need to win support from the local authority for every aspect, took four years. So far my local authority has only accommodated two families. We do not have four years to prepare. We do not even have four weeks to respond, but that demonstrates the scale of activity that needs to take place within the coming days.
The Ukraine families need to be at the centre of our consideration. The last thing any family need, as has already been suggested, is to be moved from pillar to post. As hosts, we need to recognise that we may need to support them for an extended period. Even if the conflict ended quickly, there has been so much destructive activity in Ukraine that many homes and communities do not exist any more. So I say to Members on the Government Benches, but particularly to Members on the Opposition Benches, that if there has ever been an occasion to come together, definitely call on the Government to support and to act, but do that in a positive spirit, because other people are watching and many of these families deserve the warmest welcome that we can provide.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak after so many interesting and varied speeches so far. Let me start by saying unequivocally that the Ukrainian Government and their people have every right to wage armed resistance against this unmentionable Russian invasion, which I believe is included under the UN charter. That is the first thing I wanted to put on record, but from now on some of my speech may find disagreement with Members in this place. I support the Government and their arming of Ukrainian resistance but, as I mentioned in an intervention, I also have questions. One of the roles of the Opposition and one of the roles of us in this place is to ask the questions that we think the Government are not asking or do not want asked. That is our job here and that is what I want to do today in my speech.
In my intervention, I asked whether we were doing enough to put in place precautions about the billions of pounds of arms that are going into Ukraine. Some of them— Stinger missiles and anti-tank weapons— are quite lethal. We know from our recent history that those weapons can be turned against us. I can go into a shop and find a tracking device to follow my bike, my iPhone or any device I have. There is software that can be shut down with kill switches. The more lethal and complex the technology, the easier it is for us to do that. I do not need the details—we do not need the details in this House—but I want to know that the Government are thinking a few moves ahead and that is what I want to talk about today. I want to talk about thinking beyond the immediate, trying to be strategic and thinking about the consequences of our actions now. Those actions are right—arming the Ukrainian people is right—but there are other actions that will come from this, so how do we make sure we learn from the lessons of the past?
I think it is time to pause and reflect: where do we want to be in six months, in a year, in 10 years? I want to ask some questions that have been raised by an organisation called Rethinking Security. I will quickly go through them now; there are about seven.
Do we see military might as inherently wrong, delegitimised because of Russia’s actions in Ukraine, or do we merely see it discredited in the wrong hands and validated in the form of our valiant allies and armed forces? Do we recognise the horror of all humanity caught up in war, or do we decide that, like malaria and cholera, this is some African or Asian malady that intrudes intolerably into safe, civilised Europe? Do we recognise that oligarchic interests have captured and corrupted our own political, economic and media structures, or do we make examples of a few Russian playboys and declare mission accomplished?
Do we really want to break our easy addiction to imported carbon, or do we just want to find a new dealer? I say that noting that the Prime Minister is on his way to Saudi Arabia, a country that has just executed 81 people and is conducting a brutal war in Yemen—I am smelling some inconsistencies here. Do we believe that Ukraine, Belarus and Russia are all integral to Europe, and commit to their eventual inclusion within a secure and just peace system, or do we decide that a new iron curtain is the best way to divide and subdue a continent at arms? Those are the questions we need to be asking, beyond the immediate.
I want to come now to the role of the oligarchs and their interests. This is the rot that is at the heart of our politics and economy. We have heard repeatedly how the Benches opposite are bankrolled by the richest, including oligarchs. That is who they represent. This is writ large in their policies and policy choices. But do not take my word for it. An investigation by openDemocracy in 2019 revealed that, in a decade of austerity, the Conservatives took £130 million in donations and 80% of their 2019 general election funding came from the elite Leaders Group, with exclusive access granted to group members for a fee of £50,000. There are other examples. Overseas territories, British tax havens, are responsible for 29% of the £245 billion in global taxes that the world loses to corporate, according to the Tax Justice Network. We know that donors and elites can essentially purchase a permanent seat in the House of Lords. Look at the owner of the Evening Standard, who, I am pleased to say, our own leader refused to be photographed with. We know that elites in our own media own 90% of UK-wide media and print and it is controlled by just three companies.
Richard Graham
This is an incredibly important debate for us all. Feelings are very strong and a massive amount is being done by our constituents and by the Government in a series of different sectors. The hon. Gentleman has so much to contribute and so many valuable thoughts. I wonder whether he really needs to focus on an argument about the funding of different parties as his key contribution to the debate.
Clive Lewis
I think the reason many of us on this side want to focus on this is because, at the heart of what is going on, we understand that, for many years, Putin—the same man, the same circle that devastated Russia and asset stripped it—planted that money into the City of London. This was their city of choice. That happened on the watch of successive Governments, but the hon. Member’s Government as well. I think it is critical that we understand Putin and the people around him, and how they have enriched and engorged themselves and made themselves powerful. We have to understand how that has happened if we do not want it to happen again. We also have to understand how our democracy is being corroded by interests similar to those of the people in control of Russia.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend aware of the £30,000 accepted by the Conservative party from the wife of a Putin ally, Lubov Chernukhin? Let us be clear, in answer to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham): Lubov Chernukhin is married to the former Deputy Finance Minister, Vladimir Chernukhin. At that time, the then Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson), was warned about cyber-attacks from Russia. We had the absurd situation where he himself took that woman around Churchill’s war rooms on a private guided tour. That is the point my hon. Friend is making. The Conservative party is steeped in Kremlin money.
Clive Lewis
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention—[Interruption.] I can hear chuntering. I am sure Conservative Members do not want that mentioned. They want us to focus merely on what is happening in front of us. That is right, and much time will be devoted to it, but it is also important that we see the underlying trends and conditions that have in part enabled people such as Putin and the circle around him to come to power. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) is chuntering from a sedentary position. He can make a point if he wishes to.
Alec Shelbrooke
The hon. Gentleman just said that the Conservative party brought Putin to power. Will he remind me who was in government in the year 2000?
Clive Lewis
I will give the right hon. Member a quote—it will make the point very clearly:
“When confronting oligarchs and corruption, we need to look well beyond Russia, and not just at other autocracies but at our own national elites and the control that they have over politics and the media. It is too easy to blame Russia and some campaign of foreign subversion. The truth is that we have also been subverted from within and allowed our institutions to be captured and sold. Our media is oligarchic and so, increasingly is our politics. Whether Russian, Australian or British, such concentrated wealth and power is detrimental to our freedom and security.”
James Gray
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way in the middle of his rant. Supposing that his absurd conspiracy theory were correct, can he point to one single policy decision by the Government—any Government—made as a result of his alleged corruption?
Clive Lewis
I am pleased to see the hon. Member here and not in his Caribbean home—[Interruption.].
James Gray
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I make it absolutely plain to the hon. Gentleman that I have a flat in Westminster, that I have no Caribbean home and that it is simply an absurd allegation to suggest that I do?
Clive Lewis
I take that back—I have the hon. Member confused with someone else, but don’t worry about that. He does not have a Caribbean home, and that is fine, but one of his colleagues does and he spent a vast deal of time during lockdown defending the interests of oligarchs in this country. We will move on. [Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering from a seated position—would he like to make a point?
Clive Lewis
No? Thank you. Good. [Interruption.] You can bury your gold in there. Let us move on.
Clive Lewis
No, I will make some progress. [Interruption.] I am sure that there will be plenty more for the hon. Member to come back on.
I will move on to military spending. I hear Government Members making—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that I have not put a time limit on speeches, but I have asked people to keep to around eight minutes and he is way over that now.
Clive Lewis
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I appreciate your generosity.
In terms of increasing expenditure on defence, we must first ensure that what we already spend is spent properly and efficiently. I do not think we can say that about the Ministry of Defence’s procurement, which is known across Government to be ineffective and inefficient—I need only mention the Ajax armoured vehicle to make the point that billions have been misallocated and spent inefficiently and ineffectively. Before we start talking about spending more, let us not forget that we are one of the biggest spenders on armaments in the world, dwarfing Russia—we spend more than Russia every year—and that global spend on armaments is approaching $2.5 trillion, which is 20 times larger than what we have pledged to spend on the climate crisis, the biggest existential threat facing humanity. I understand that all eyes are on Ukraine and Putin now, but we must understand that poverty, inequality and the climate crisis are the biggest drivers of global insecurity, and, while spending money on weapons and warfare is right and appropriate, we must put that into the context of appropriate spending on other areas.
We already see right-wing Tory outriders such as James Forsyth saying that money will have to come from other sectors of Treasury spend to pay for defence increases. I and—I think—many Opposition Members feel that if there is to be extra spending on defence, that needs to come from the rich, not the public, the poor and my constituents, who have spent the last 10 years under austerity, just come through covid and now face a cost of living crisis. They should not be paying the extra for defence spending. If there are to be sacrifices, let them be made by the rich, not the vast majority of my constituents.
I will finish with a quote. You have been very generous, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the answer to the questions I asked earlier
“is not to defend the status quo by investing our common wealth into more arms, border walls and imported fossil fuels, then we have work to do. The first step is recognising how perilous the current order is and acknowledging the culpability of our own actions and those taken in our name. Solidarity with a common humanity deserving of a common security is the next step toward taking action to change the international system towards one genuinely opposing the threat and reality of war. The challenge then is to build-back-better a new international order supportive of human development, human protection and human security for all.”
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I disagree with quite a lot of what the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) said. However, I acknowledge the fact he served on the frontline in Afghanistan in the armed forces of the United Kingdom and that it takes a degree of moral courage to speak out against the overwhelming views of an audience. I am sure that he would acknowledge, however, that whatever courage it took for him to make that rather unpopular contribution—I dare say his contribution was possibly, in some respects, inaccurate—it took a lot more moral courage for Maria Ovsyannikova to speak out as she did on Channel 1 Russian TV. I wish to put on record in this House—I do not think it has been done yet since she did so—what her placard said:
“No war. Stop the war. Don’t believe propaganda. They are lying to you here.”
Because she knew the sort of society in which she lives would have her arrested and locked away for what she had done, she had pre-prepared a video which concluded as follows:
“Now the whole world has turned away from us”—
meaning the Russians—
“and the next 10 generations of our descendants will not wash away the shame of this fratricidal war.”
As a young mother with one Russian and one Ukrainian parent, who is better qualified than she to judge?
Daniel Kawczynski
My right hon. Friend is making a brilliant point. Is he aware that this lady now potentially faces a prison sentence of 15 years, because of the new legislation introduced by Putin to try to suppress freedom of speech?
Dr Lewis
Yes, I am aware of that. And I feel that the more attention we draw to her courage and bravery in showing up the ruthless nature of the regime which Vladimir Putin embodies, the more likely it is that perhaps Russia will think twice before it goes even further than it already has.
James Gray
Will my right hon. Friend and the whole House join me in also paying tribute to the American Fox News cameraman Pierre Zakrzewski, who has been killed outside Kyiv?
Dr Lewis
Yes, indeed. Politicians often have harsh words to say about journalists, but I wonder how many politicians would put themselves at risk in the way in which so many journalists—American, BBC, Sky and all the other British journalists—are doing. Let us remember that when we are listening to reports about incoming missiles, those brave men and women are reporting from the very targets on which those missiles are ranged.
Near the end of the second world war, the joint intelligence sub-committee of the British chiefs of staff produced a report entitled “Relations with the Russians”. From years of experience of the Anglo-Soviet alliance against Nazi Germany, the JIC concluded that Russia would respect only strength as the basis for any future relationship.
According to the sneering psychopath Mr Putin, what his country is engaged in at the moment is a holy war against Ukrainian neo-Nazis. What he fails to remind people is that the second world war, with which he presumes to draw comparisons, was enabled only by the vicious agreement between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia to carve out Poland as a result of a secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. When people in this country ask which event started the second world war, it is not enough to say that it was the Nazi invasion of Poland. It was the Nazi-Soviet agreement to invade Poland 16 days apart: Nazis from the west and Soviet Russia from the east.
Vladimir Putin is a product of that history and of that system. He earned his spurs in the KGB, schooled in the suppression of captive countries, steeped in the culture of communist domination and filled with regret that the Soviet empire imploded. According to him, its break-up was the greatest disaster of the 20th century—a revealing and curious choice when compared with the millions killed in two world wars, in the Russian civil war and in the forced collectivisations, the mass deportations and the hell of the Soviet gulag. Until the Bolshevik revolution came along, there had been a significant chance of Russia evolving along democratic lines, but then the cancer of Marxism-Leninism gave cynical psychopaths like him their ideological excuse to seize total control. Their opponents were denounced as enemies of the people and were put, or worked, to death with no semblance of due process.
Now that ideology has gone, but the ruthless mindset remains. Russian leaders no longer claim to be building a workers’ paradise, but they still believe that western capitalists will sell them the rope with which to be hanged.
Alec Shelbrooke
May I draw on my right hon. Friend’s point about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? I am sure that he has seen the Putin essay. Paragraph 38 is really frightening for European security:
“Under the 1921 Treaty of Riga, concluded between the Russian SFSR, the Ukrainian SSR and Poland, the western lands of the former Russian Empire were ceded to Poland.”
Does that not make it clear that Putin’s intentions do not stop at Ukraine?
Dr Lewis
It makes it absolutely clear. That will be the very next point that I address.
Whereas Russia previously infiltrated by ideology, its leaders now bribe their targets with high-spending oligarchs and the temptations that they place in the way of western politicians. Gerhard Schröder, a former Chancellor of Germany, is the prime example—a man who has been chairman of Rosneft since 2017 and has recently, I believe, been a director of Gazprom as well. He has been at the heart of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project, which my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) did so much to warn this House against when people were somewhat complacent about it.
For 40 years from 1949, two factors ensured the containment of Russia and the maintenance of peace: the deterrent power of western nuclear weapons and the collective security provided by article 5 of the north Atlantic treaty. No longer could an aggressor attack small European states that belonged to NATO without the Americans immediately entering the war. We know that it is Ukraine’s misfortune not to belong to NATO, and we can argue about whether that should have been permitted. I simply say what I have said all along, which is that if NATO over-extends the guarantee of article 5 to the point at which it ceases to be credible that the major NATO countries would fight world war three to defend the country in question, it undermines the credibility of the guarantee as a whole.
I will conclude by referring to what the former President Petro Poroshenko said on Sky TV at 1 o’clock today. He made a more appropriate parallel with world war two than Putin could ever make when he referred to what we called “lend-lease”, which was the decision taken and signed into law by President Roosevelt in March 1941 to give all sorts of high-value equipment and support to those countries that were fighting for democracy, even though America was not then in the war itself.
Former president Poroshenko quoted Churchill’s words:
“Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.”
He also said, “Don’t trust Putin…if you try to compromise with Putin he will go further.”
This relates to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke). There is no doubt at all that the battle that Ukraine is fighting now is the frontline of the battle that would face NATO if NATO’s credibility were undermined.
So it is quite simple, and I think that the Government could go further in terms of this rather artificial distinction between “defensive” and “offensive” weaponry. I believe that fighter jets—provided that they are crewed by Ukrainians and not by people of a NATO nationality—are a defensive weapon, and that we should operate according to a single practical slogan, namely that we will support Ukraine in its fight for democracy by all means short of war; and that means supplying them with the tools so that they can finish the job.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
For over two weeks, we have witnessed the most profound threat to democracy in Europe since the second world war, and the humanitarian crisis that followed unfolding before us. When the time came for us to respond, in the first instance Ministers of this UK Government were once again out of kilter with the strong public opinion on how they should treat refugees fleeing war. We must remember that this is a Government who not only came to power on the basis of a Brexit promise to limit migration from eastern Europe, but have allowed an influx of Russian agents and oligarchs to feed dirty money into once respected institutions. The Prime Minister himself was at one time deemed a potential security risk owing to his cosy relationships with certain individuals.
More than 300 constituents have contacted me to express their anger at the pitiful response—in our name—from this Government. Mr Chambers from Bargeddie wrote:
“Steven please press this heartless Government into being more accommodating of these poor refugees.”
So far 2.5 million refugees have fled Ukraine, with the United Nations estimating that the number will double by the end of this week, and what have this Government actually succeeded in doing? They have created barrier after barrier and piled confusion on top of misery, using excuse after excuse and exploring any possible way in which they could avoid playing their full part in this European humanitarian crisis. The solution was staring them in the face all the while: waive visa requirements for Ukrainian women and children desperately fleeing war and in need of sanctuary.
Countries with far lesser economic output than the UK can go above and beyond to waive visa restrictions for migrants from Ukraine, so why can we not do the same? The answer is the lack of political will. Scotland and Wales have already committed themselves to becoming “super sponsors” for Ukrainian refugees, but the power to make such a decision lies in the idle hands on the Government Benches. If the shackles of this place—the shackles of Westminster—were not upon them, the devolved countries would have already become champions of humanity.
Alun Cairns
The hon. Member will have heard the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Minister for Intergovernmental Relations yesterday show complete willingness to work with the devolved Administrations, the Scottish and Welsh Governments, in the warmest way possible. Has the hon. Member looked at the data on the performance by the local authorities in each of those nations in receiving Syrian refugees? There may be an awful amount of rhetoric at the moment, but the activity is very different.
Steven Bonnar
I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution, but the political point that he makes does not stand up to any form of scrutiny. Scottish councils stand ready to accommodate refugees. We did the same in the case of the Congo and Syria. It is up to the Home Office and this Government to provide the funding to allow Scottish local authorities to play their part.
Carol Monaghan
My hon. Friend will also be aware that in Scotland we have taken more refugees per head of population than anywhere else in the UK since 2017—so for the last five years.
Steven Bonnar
My colleague makes a fantastic point, and I am sure that the House will take it on board.
Another constituent of mine, Mrs Fuller from Bellshill, wrote:
“Steven, we have tried to help in any small way we can through donations but this is a drop in the ocean of what is required when the real power lies with this Government.”
My constituent is absolutely correct, but what have this Government done with their power? They have limited family reunification, cut foreign aid budgets and denied women and children immediate entry. They are consumed by the idea of denying any prospect of residency. This Government should have shaped an immediate humanitarian response that went beyond warm words—something befitting the attitude of the general public across these four nations. Germany, for example, has already given all arrivals the right to work and children access to education immediately. The French have offered free train travel from Poland to France, with more than 100,000 refugees expected in the next couple of weeks. The Irish waived visa requirements immediately. And to the Polish, we must say dziękuję—thank you. We watched as they opened their borders, their homes and their hearts. We also watched as the UK dragged its heels as it amplified a post-Brexit state that contrasts starkly with the compassion shown by our EU counterparts.
Stewart Hosie
We tend to forget Moldova, but it is always worth remembering that the poorest country in Europe has taken in a quarter of a million refugees. A quarter of a million! Does not that make it doubly shameful that what we are told is one of the wealthiest countries in the world has so far done so little?
Steven Bonnar
I agree completely with my right hon. Friend.
Another of my constituents, Mr Strachan from Viewpark, wrote:
“As like many others, myself and my wife are disgusted at the UK Government’s failure to bring many more Ukrainian refugees to the UK. Ukrainians, and all refugees, are welcome in Scotland.”
That point about all refugees sends an important message, because we must not lose sight of all other atrocities that continue across the globe as well as the war in Ukraine. The conflicts in Palestine, Yemen, Sudan, Iraq and Kashmir are all ongoing, but without much concern or support from this Government. We all remember this Government announcing an Afghan resettlement scheme, yet almost six months later we are still no further forward with a solution for those who remain in the midst of a relentless Taliban regime.
This Government are all talk but no action, unless that action is to continue to arm the perpetrators of such conflicts. The UK sold £15 billion-worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia last year—the very same weapons that are now being used to terrorise the Yemeni people—and British-made bombs rain down on Palestine. How can we claim to be against such atrocities when this very Government are responsible for selling the arms that enable them? This UK Government cannot sit back and allow history to judge their actions. If they do, history will not be kind.
I hope that the people of Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill have, through me, made their feelings quite clear: the Prime Minister’s and this Government’s response is inadequate. The Prime Minister must ask himself: what is the price of compassion? Bureaucracy can no longer trump humanity when kindness and decency are required, and I sincerely hope that this Home Office and this Government will enact some decency and humanity in its operations, not only for Ukrainians but for all those suffering in conflicts across the world.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
There will now be a six-minute limit.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
This will be a shorter speech, but I am afraid that we have to prepare for a long war. There will be escalation. We are seeing the build-up of the Russian navy ready to attack Odesa, there is a threat to Moldova, and in the western Balkans the Russians have been restoking that old conflict ready to make it explode once again and opening another front. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and North America hoped that sanctions would bring this to an early conclusion, but I am afraid that they will not. Sanctions will take a long time. The Russians have a long history of bearing hardship, and it will take a long time before they blame Mr Putin for those hardships. We will have to bear the sacrifices that the sanctions will cause for our own people, but we can and must win this conflict.
What matters above everything now is the resolve and determination of our NATO allies that, however long it takes, freedom and democracy will prevail. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is fond of saying that Putin’s invasion must fail, but we can show more confidence than that: it will fail and Putin will fail. Dictators and despots who mount illegal foreign wars all fail in the end. Hitler, Mussolini, Galtieri and Saddam Hussein, they all failed.
However many die in this struggle, whatever the cost in the mangled bodies of innocent civilians and however many cities are flattened to compensate for Putin’s real powerlessness, he will fail. The wars of dictators always fail and will always fail. The whole evil edifice of the old Soviet Union, even that failed in the end. The lies, the corruption, the self-deceit, the lack of consent and the inability to inspire—Putin’s invasion is built on the same rotten values.
Democracy and our elected politicians are riven with imperfections, but our fundamental values shine across the seas and continents to illuminate the darkness. They inspire those who are fighting the invaders now, and they must inspire us also.
Ukrainians will never surrender, as President Zelensky told this Parliament last week, and we should not consider surrendering anything on their behalf, not their freedoms and not their territory. We never accepted the Soviet occupation of the countries of eastern Europe as a permanent settlement, and today those nations are free. We know that one day Ukraine will again be free, but to give our resolve meaning we must do more to support the fighting morale of the Ukrainian forces, as their morale is their vital component. They have, so far, surpassed the expectations so many had of them, they have humiliated Putin’s army and they have destroyed the fake aura of his invincibility. We must arm them in every way we can short of war, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said. We must provide more ammunition, more ant-tank weapons, more anti-aircraft weapons, more humanitarian and military training and more humanitarian aid, and we should find a way to get them the MiGs.
We must not be intimidated from doing what is right to help another nation defend itself, but we must avoid overreacting to Putin’s escalations and provocations. There must be a clear distinction between the measured way we act and our iron will and resolve to win in the end. What we must not do is accept a political defeat while the military battle is turning against Putin’s army. In fact, the danger today comes from those who want to negotiate on Putin’s terms by inviting political defeat at the time when Putin’s war is going so badly for him.
There will be more destruction, more death, more indescribable horrors, more tragedy and more blood. That is the pity of war, as Wilfred Owen described it. We should pledge to rebuild Ukraine and pledge that this invasion will not stand, or the whole free world will pay the price for such a defeat for decades to come. We must rebuild our strength. We enjoyed a 30-year peace dividend, but the peace is over and the dividend is cancelled. NATO must rebuild the strength and deterrence upon which our security depends. The price of peace is eternal vigilance, a lesson we must never again forget. We will rebuild peace only through strength. Let us never again forget that we can have peace only through strength.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I agree with every word spoken by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin).
All this was not only predictable but predicted repeatedly in this House by some of us, and we were shouted down for saying it. I said in 2014:
“We know how Putin reacts in a crisis…We also know about his territorial ambition.”—[Official Report, 18 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 677.]
In that debate, hon. Members repeatedly trotted out the Russian line about the annexation of Crimea.
The Daily Telegraph, from 2007 to 2017, received £40,000 a month for “Russia Beyond the Headlines”, which was paid for by the Russian Government—it was Russian propaganda.
I am delighted that we now have a proper list of sanctions against people such as Nikolai Patrushev, Igor Sechin, Sergei Shoigu and Sergey Naryshkin. They should have been on the list right from the very beginning, as they are the very closest people to the Russian Government and they are completely entwined in the decision to invade Ukraine. But I am mystified at why some people are still missing from the list, including some of the broadcasters. Sergey Brilev regularly reports on the war in Ukraine for Rossiya 1 and always touts the Russian line. He has a £700,000 flat in Chiswick and a British passport, as well as a Russian one. Why on earth is he not on the list? Vladimir Solovyov, a 58-year-old who is also on Rossiya 1, is on the EU list but not on the UK one. Olga Skabeeva, a 37-year-old, is also on the EU list but not on ours. She is another person trotting out the Russian propaganda.
I do not understand why the former MP Rinat Khayrov, who is very close to the Defence Ministry, is not on the list. I do not understand why his close associate Rustem Magdeev is not, and neither is Khayrov’s daughter, Elsina Khayrova, who is unemployed but manages to have a £22 million mansion in Surrey, a £10 million art fund and £25 million spent on other properties around the UK. I do not understand why her husband, or perhaps soon to be ex-husband, Dmitry Tsvetkov is not on the list, and neither are so many others involved in Gazprom contracts. I do not understand why Abramovich’s properties that are owned through his “subsidiaries”, or rather by members of his family—Irina, Anna and Sofia—in Chester Square, Ebury Mews, Eaton Square, Cadogan Place, Hornbury Crescent, Tor Gardens, Fyning Hill and Goldring farm are not on the list. I do not understand why those have not yet been frozen as assets.
I do not know why Arron Banks is not on the list, either—even Isabel Oakeshott now thinks that he is an agent of influence for the Russian state. I simply point out that Nigel Farage received £548,573 from Russia Today in 2018 alone—this is from the Russian state.
We should not just be freezing assets; we should be seizing them. I do not think the Government have the power to do that. In normal times, we would not want them to be able to seize assets, but we need to have that power now. If we look at Chelsea football club, we see that it is in a kind of limbo at the moment. It ought to be able to flourish. I have no ill feeling against Chelsea football club—I am Welsh and I do not really care about football much. What I do care about is that the asset should be seized by the Government so that it can be spent on the reconstruction in Ukraine. If the Government do not take that power, they are not going to be able to do that.
That takes me to a point that I do not think the Foreign Secretary fully understood when she appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee last week, which relates to the issue of war crimes. We have undoubtedly seen war crimes committed in Ukraine already: the bombing of civilians when they are trying to escape as refugees through ceasefire corridors, the bombing of civilian and residential areas where there are absolutely no military installations, and the use of phosphorus weapons. I would argue that nowadays we should also be considering the use of cluster munitions as a war crime.
Many of those issues will be addressed by the International Criminal Court, but the one issue that is more difficult for it, because it is not a part of international criminal law at the moment, is the initiating of a war of aggression. In the Nuremberg trials, the British deputy judge declared that it was not just an international war crime but the ultimate international war crime, because it encompassed all the other crimes inside it. The danger is, of course, that the President, the person who makes the final decision—the ultimate decision—the person at the very apex of the decision, is the one most distant from the individual decisions that may be made. I hope that all the people I mentioned earlier as the main elite in the Russian Government, and Lavrov as well, will be held to account at the ICC, but we may have to change the law to make sure that Putin himself is brought to justice, and that is what we must do.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
History does not so much repeat itself as do human nature and nationalistic ambitions, despite decades of protestations of European peace and harmony. The current crisis goes back even further and with even deeper roots than are currently understood. We should never forget Bismarck’s warning that whenever he heard the word “Europe” on the lips of his fellow statesmen, he began to worry.
Central to the accumulating current Ukrainian situation is the fact that both Chancellor Kohl and later Angela Merkel, not to mention Gerhard Schröder and strategists in the European Union, contributed profoundly to the overwhelming strategic failure that we face today. This can be traced back to the bilateral treaty, underestimated by most at the time, between Gorbachev and Kohl in November 1990, with the wall having come down, as Maastricht loomed and as Margaret Thatcher fell. The treaty led to a massive shift in the balance of power in eastern and central Europe. By signing this bilateral treaty, they put Germany and Europe into a continuing state of dependency on Russian energy and in respect of related matters. We continue to pay the price.
In 1990, Chancellor Kohl was convinced that there had been a seismic shift in favour of Germany’s leadership of Europe. In a 2001 article in The European Journal, I argued that the situation was then coming to a head, with grave implications for the future geopolitical stability of Europe. I pointed to the inextricable relationship between Germany and Russia, embedded in Germany’s strategy, and to the indebtedness of Russia to Germany and therefore its dependency.
Russia’s debt, 40% of which was owed to Germany alone, was accompanied by a debt rescheduling agreement signed in Berlin in July 2000. The agreement was complemented by contracts for export credit guarantees provided by the German state-owned company Hermes. I emphasised my concern that Germany was then agreeing in principle to convert Russian debt into equity in Russian companies—in which Gerhard Schröder, the ex-Chancellor of Germany, became a major player. I believe that even now he is still the chairman of Rosneft, is on Gazprom’s board of directors and is chairman of the Nord Stream shareholders committee. Is that still so? Has he been sanctioned?
I warned then—in 2001—against German firms increasing their stake in Gazprom. At that time, natural gas exports from Russia to Germany amounted to 35% of Germany’s annual consumption. I argued that Vladimir Putin, scarcely heard of at the time, was a Russian nationalist who bitterly resented being dependent on America and who had a choice between building an alliance with China or with Europe. I argued that Russia’s dependence on Germany had within it the seeds of self-destruction and represented severe dangers to our future geopolitical stability.
By the arrangements I have described, Russia was enabled to weaponise its energy against the west in return for short-sighted hubris and self-interested greed. We live today with the consequences of those mistakes; therefore arises the tragedy of Ukraine. Nord Stream 2 —let alone Nord Stream 1—bypasses Ukraine, so it remains one of the greatest strategic mistakes of our time, conceived all of 20 years ago or more. It created Europe’s dependency on Russian gas and oil supplies, which must be totally ended now.
When we reflect on the fundamental shift represented by Olaf Scholz’s reversal of Germany’s defence policy and its increase in defence spending, let us remember that two swallows do not make a summer, and that it was a mere three weeks ago that I wrote an article in which I pointed out that Germany was providing only a few thousand helmets to Russia’s eastern European neighbours and merely pausing Nord Stream 2. It is now not a question of merely learning lessons with the benefit of hindsight: the real point is whether we will ever learn the real lessons of history and of human nature that need to be learned for the future. As I speak, Germany still depends on Russian oil and gas and Nord Stream 2 has only been paused, not yet completely abandoned.
Regaining our self-government has enabled the UK to become self-sufficient in deploying our new resources from the North sea licensing regime, as the Prime Minister has indicated. It has given us the ability to rely on, among other things, our own domestic nuclear industry—I pay tribute to the nuclear delivery group, of which I am a member, for all the work that it has done over the past six months—and, hopefully, sensible and balanced renewables. We must accelerate this programme at once as a matter of national interest. We must also encourage the European Union to do the same, and we must never forget that domestic national energy requirements and self-sufficiency are at the centre of gravity of economic and, therefore, political independence. We are part of an alliance. We will work in alliance with Europe, in alliance with the United Nations and in alliance with the United States and the rest of the world against Putin. We must never forget that we are in peril and that we have to fight back.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Let me start by echoing the fine tribute that the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) gave to Marina Ovsyannikova. Her bravery yesterday was extraordinary, as it has become so deeply dangerous in Russia to tell the truth. Her act of courage has inspired us all, and we wish her all the safety that she can possibly have right now.
I am proud that this House stands so united against the tyrant Putin and his murderous regime, and in support of the determination and extraordinary bravery of the Ukrainian people who face a level of horror and devastation that many have rightly said amounts to war crimes. I want to put on record my support for the many hon, Members who have spoken eloquently about the urgent need for Ministers to waive visas for refugees and to match the compassion and generosity of other EU countries. I share the concerns that have been raised about the lack of speed and scope of some of the policies on sanctions.
I want register my thanks to all those hon. Members who are working with me to put pressure on our own parliamentary pension fund to divest from Russian assets, including from companies such as HSBC which, according to Bloomberg data, owns equity stakes in five of the biggest Russian oil and gas companies.
In the short time available to me, I want to take a step back and focus a little more on what got us into the situation in which we find ourselves and on the action that is needed to tackle Putin’s long-running hybrid war of both violence and disinformation, which has long been in force, including here in the UK. It is an insidious strategy that deliberately undermines our public information sphere and our political institutions, and that deliberately seeks to divide the democracies that might stand up to him over Ukraine.
On disinformation, I suggest that we look no further than what is revealed in the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report, which warned that there was credible, open-source evidence of attempted Russian interference in UK elections. It painted a picture of how Russian state influence in the UK is the new normal, with deep links between the Russian elite and UK politics, and how, crucially, the intelligence community had, in its own words, taken its “eye off the ball” on Russia.
It gives me no pleasure to observe that the Prime Minister is personally responsible for delaying, suppressing and then failing to investigate the Russia report. MPs, including myself, are now having to resort to the courts for a second time to try to get the Prime Minister finally to investigate. We are now going to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, alongside the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and representatives from the other place. This curious lack of interest in evidence of Russian state interference in our electoral processes is, frankly, extraordinary, and stands in stark contrast to investigations undertaken in the US.
Then we come to the violence. As the news about Ukraine darkens even further, increasingly we think the unthinkable—would Putin, for example, use chemical weapons? The answer has to be yes, because he has already done so here on UK soil in 2018. The Salisbury nerve agent attack was part of Putin’s long-term strategy, message and hybrid warfare. The amount of nerve agent found in the bottle that was used against the Skripals and that killed Dawn Sturgess was enough
“to kill several thousand people”,
according to a recent interview with Fiona Hill, a former US national security adviser on Russia. Putin wanted us to know that he is prepared to use any weapon.
When Putin sent a weapons-grade nerve agent to Salisbury, it was a military operation and seen as an attack on NATO. As a result, there was far-reaching international co-operation, including sanctions. Our then Foreign Secretary, now Prime Minister, met NATO Foreign Ministers in Brussels for a crucial, highly sensitive meeting about Russia in the wake of that chemical attack on UK soil.
However, we have since learned the shocking news that, immediately following that meeting, the then Foreign Secretary ditched his security and travelled directly to the Italian villa of Evgeny Lebedev, the person with the life peerage who is now under so much scrutiny—the person who, as long as a decade ago, Sir John Sawers, then head of MI6, made clear was not deemed a suitable person to meet. While he was there, the Foreign Secretary also met Evgeny’s father, ex-KGB agent and oligarch Alexander Lebedev.
That raises crucial questions. Did the then Foreign Secretary inform the Prime Minister, the Foreign Office and the security services that he was going to fly from the NATO summit to meet an ex-KGB agent? If so, why was he travelling alone, without his security detail? Did he take classified documents with him? Did he inform the Prime Minister and the security services about the meeting after the trip? Was he debriefed? Did he provide a list of contacts?
Let me be clear: Salisbury was the first use of a chemical weapon in Europe since world war two. It was an attack on NATO soil and, as the Minister responsible for overseeing the British response, our now Prime Minister went straight from a classified meeting with NATO’s Secretary-General and alliance partners to meet a trained Russian intelligence officer. That is surely a national security breach of the highest possible order. That is why investigating that incident, the Russia report and every part of Putin’s arsenal—how he and those linked to him have created dependence and compromise via sports, finance, property, land and energy—is so urgent.
I say that not to score points, but because undermining democracy in the US and Europe was part of Putin’s strategy to divide and confuse the world as he prepared to attack Ukraine. We must be thorough. When the people of Ukraine are dodging bombs and bullets, we should not be dodging the truth.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
The Kremlin must be reeling in shock. President Putin was no doubt briefed that a simultaneous rapid blitzkrieg into Ukraine on at least three axes would result in Russian forces triumphant in Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities. The briefings were wrong, and the envisaged three-day rapid campaign has been ground into a humiliating slogging match, in which Ukrainian forces often give Russian troops a very bloody nose.
It is clear that Putin fully expected Ukrainians to show weak resistance, and at the same time to welcome their fellow Slavs with joy, flags and flowers. Wrong—very wrong. Ukrainians may be Slavs, but they now look much more to the west than the east. They do not want Mr Putin’s version of tyrannic government.
Putin is most certainly a tyrant, and one who has few inhibitions when it comes to those who disagree with or fail him. Since the third Russian major general was killed—apparently there are about 20 of them in Ukraine—Putin has sacked those in the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation, the FSB, who provided intelligence briefings on what the Russian forces could expect on entry to Ukraine.
Putin, an old KGB officer himself, will be under no illusions about the dangers he faces even at home. We have all seen, and my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) have mentioned, the incredible display by a placard-bearing TV editor, Maria Ovsyannikova, who appeared on the Russian state television Channel One news programme. That went right the way across Russia and would have made her point vividly. What an incredibly brave person.
Naturally we all hope that Putin’s premiership could be on an increasingly slippery slope, so as to get him out of power, but we should not bet on it. A huge percentage of the Russian population will still be with Putin—will believe what he is putting out—but hopefully the slow drip, drip, drip of resistance will eventually reach a tipping point, and the grey suits in the Kremlin will tap him up and suggest, “Time to go.” We all hope that, but we cannot guarantee it.
In the meantime, we in the UK must do all we can to support the Ukrainian people, who, I gather, are increasingly demanding that the Russians are convincingly defeated. Their anger at what Russia has done is growing daily as casualties mount up, homes are destroyed, and cities are wrecked. Russia has failed to establish total domination of the air—and that, by the way, is because of the considerable help that we the British have given the Ukrainian armed forces by means of training and anti-aircraft missiles. May I remind the House that we trained 20,000 Ukrainian soldiers prior to the war, especially in the use of anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons? Speaking as an infantry officer for a moment, those are perfect weapons in the kind of conflict we see in Ukraine. Held by single men and women, they are really effective in built-up areas.
My contacts who have good sources in Ukraine tell me that we the British are considered to have been an incredible friend to the people there, and our stock is very high because of the support we have given throughout the crisis. So we must continue to do everything we can to help Ukraine. First, obviously, we are going to give as much shelter and support to those poor people that come to our country. Secondly, we are going to continue to use every instrument, and even more instruments, to get to punish the people in charge in Russia—
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
From my right hon. Friend’s own experience as a former serving officer, what more military assistance does he think the UK Government could give? Must we mindful of perhaps stoking an escalation?
Bob Stewart
I am very mindful of an escalation, because I am really concerned that Putin might start using chemical weapons when he fails to get into the centre of towns, as he did in Aleppo. The answer to the question is to provide MiG-29s from other countries to be flown by Ukrainian pilots, so that they can take on high-level aeroplanes.
Thirdly, we have to provide money—DEC is doing really well there—as well as weapons and ammunition, and frankly anything that will help the Ukrainians to maintain their incredibly plucky defence of their country. God bless Ukraine!
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
It is indeed an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and other Members who have spoken here today. It is a huge privilege and honour to sit among so many people who hold democracy so close to their hearts in supporting the Ukrainian people.
Ukrainians and President Zelensky have displayed the highest level of bravery in the face of brutal Russian aggression. In the eyes of Vladimir Putin, Ukrainians have made an unforgivable choice: they decided to be an independent and democratic country. Like all dictators, Putin is terrified of losing power. He is fearful of having a partially Russian-speaking nation on his border succeed as a democracy. In Putin’s eyes, Ukraine has to fail, or the Russian people will see that there is a better way.
Ukrainians have made their choice. They want to be a European country. They want to become a member of NATO. They want to be free to make their own choices. Make no mistake, Ukrainians are fighting this war on behalf of all of us who are part of the free and democratic world. We must support them as if the future of our country and our way of life depends on it, because quite frankly, it does.
Ukrainians are asking for more support. They are asking for surface-to-air missiles capable of protecting their cities. They are asking for the Soviet-era MiG-29 jets that so many have mentioned today. Each day, these decisions are deliberated over instead of acted upon. They are asking for the missiles and the jets, not the pilots. More Ukrainian men, women and children will die. NATO members are already providing weapons and ammunition. Eastern European countries providing jets is no different.
In 2014, we let Putin take Crimea without any real consequences. Putin is a man who orchestrated the bombings that resulted in the deaths of 300 of his own people to help start a war to take power. He is a man who had his political rival shot for opposing war. He is a man who approved a poisoning on British soil that resulted in the death of a British citizen. He is a man who pre-recorded his declaration of war on Ukraine, after which he pretended to be open to diplomacy. Putin will not stop until he is stopped.
I understand why NATO cannot get involved directly, yet short of that, we should be doing absolutely everything possible. That means supporting eastern European countries in their efforts to send jets to Ukraine; sanctioning and cutting off all remaining Russian banks from SWIFT; and seizing the empty homes and yachts of Russian oligarchs in British territory, including overseas. Putin cannot be allowed to win this war. If he does, it will not just be the Ukrainian people who suffer the consequences; the world will suffer them as well.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my outside interests as set out in the register.
It is a huge pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) and the very sensible speech she has just made, which underlines the unity across the House in facing this extraordinary and unjustifiable aggression by a member of the permanent five at the United Nations, tearing up 75 years of the international rules-based system and in contravention of everything that the UN has said and stood for and of the growth of international law.
Everyone in the House and the country will be haunted by the plight of the refugees. It is impossible to find words to set that out or explain it, but for many of us it will be the little girl, aged 10, terrified, her eyes wide with fear, clutching her cat as she came over the border from Ukraine. We must hope, as William Hague so eloquently said in The Times today, that
“a hollow structure…will lose its reputation and respect very quickly when its thieving and selfish reality is revealed to its own people. That may take months or years, but Putin’s henchmen would be well advised to start thinking about their escape route to Pyongyang.”
The whole House will agree with our former colleague. The Chinese today referred to the invasion as an “irreversible mistake”, and many of us this afternoon have saluted the extraordinary bravery within Russia of ordinary people standing up to this bullying maniac. I strongly support and congratulate the Government, particularly the Ministry of Defence, on giving the Ukrainians hope and some military muscle without starting world war three and on co-ordinating economic sanctions and the economic isolation of Russia across the western world and across European states.
I mainly want to talk about the humanitarian position, on which there is no need to look in our crystal ball; we can read the book of what happened in Syria. The House may recall that Jo Cox and I co-chaired the all-party parliamentary group for friends of Syria and held more than two emergency debates in the House.
If we want to know what the Russians will do to those cities in great peril in Ukraine, we need look no further than what they did in Aleppo, one of the great cities of the world, which, as the Nazis did in Guernica in 1937, they bombed back to the stone age. There were also indiscriminate attacks on hospitals. Let us imagine the bravery of the men and women, doctors and clinicians, who are working in hospitals in Ukraine and who know from Syria exactly what fate may await them. There were also massive breaches of the rules of war and of international humanitarian law.
Let us make no mistake about the danger of the use of chemical weapons, which was greatly enhanced when President Obama told the Russians that, if they used chemical weapons, they would cross a red line and action would be taken yet, when they did cross that line, no action was taken. Let us also remember the sheer numbers of people who were on the move. In Syria, 5 million people were internally displaced and 5 million people were outside in the surrounding countries—that is 10 million people out of a population of 20 million. That shows the scale of what may now face us.
The critical thing in humanitarian terms is that there should be a seamless approach where all of Europe and NATO share the burden fairly with the frontline states, whether they are in or out of the European Union.
Bob Stewart
Speaking as someone who has dealt practically with refugees and displaced persons, we should put our bureaux and our offices right at the border with Ukraine, perhaps in Poland. As people come across, we should be guiding them, helping them, protecting them and perhaps giving them some help to get to the UK or elsewhere. The European Union should be doing that—we should all be doing that—with the International Committee of the Red Cross and the UNHCR.
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. and gallant Friend, who made such a great speech earlier, is absolutely right. There should be total solidarity with the frontline states and our European friends and partners in tackling this extraordinary crisis.
My second point on the humanitarian position is that we must also underline that there will be no impunity. I remember that, in a National Security Council meeting on Syria, the Foreign Office committed to collecting evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity by individual Russian and Syrian soldiers inside Syria. We must go after all those not only who fire on civilians but who give the order to fire on civilians, no matter how long it takes and wherever they hide. In Bosnia, we showed that we could go after those murderous people. They must be caught and put before due process. The use of social media, of course, will make it much easier to get the evidence that will then defy impunity and to get the message across to ordinary Russian conscripts serving there—those who give the command and those who exercise the command—of the deep jeopardy that they will be in, no matter how long it takes, when this is all over.
My final point is to caution the House against any sense that the humanitarian corridors are likely to be much of an answer. I am afraid that, too often, they are not what they appear. There are huge dangers in apparently separating humanitarian from non-humanitarian space. By definition, they are geographically limited and they undermine obligations under international humanitarian law to allow civilians to reach safety from areas of fighting and the ability of aid to reach those in need.
We learned in Syria that Russia uses humanitarian corridors to advance its military strategy: it uses them cynically to distract and manipulate, and to empty an area for military gain rather than for humanitarian support. They create an illusory sense of security and should, in any event, be run by the ICRC. They are used as an instrument of public relations and not of humanitarian support. I caution hon. Members that they are not safe and are only a very small part of the answer.
We have heard calls this afternoon for NATO to be rejuvenated, and it is being. We have heard about the increased necessity of defence expenditure, which I entirely endorse. The words of the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), at the weekend were absolutely right. This is a terrible crisis. We must stand together on the economic sanctions and on the support for the Ukrainians, and we must hope that our former colleague, William Hague, is correct.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
The world and all of us across this House have watched in unity the horrors of recent weeks, as Ukrainian civilians and thousands of soldiers have been killed in this predicted and premeditated invasion. For perhaps the only time in the next couple of months, I sat on the Conservative side of the House to watch Zelensky give his powerful speech, as we showed unity, with party differences put aside for that day.
The ongoing war has forced more than 2.5 million people, mainly women and children, to flee their country and face the prospect of many months of uncertainty in refugee camps across Europe. Indeed, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has called it the
“fastest growing refugee crisis in Europe since World War II”,
with many predicting that numbers could exceed 4 million people in the months ahead.
While many of our European partners have scrapped their bureaucratic red tape to enable hundreds of thousands of people who are cold, hungry, grieving and desperately in need of support to seek sanctuary in their country, our Government have offered little more than hollow promises until this day. Despite the Prime Minister last week offering hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians sanctuary in the UK, the Government were shamefully forced to admit that only 1,000 people have been admitted and given refuge on our shores. The visa processing centre that the Home Office set up in Calais was little more than a single desk that failed to offer desperate Ukrainians either appointments or walk-in access. Inexplicably, it was not even made public as tens of thousands of Ukrainians streamed across France in search of safe passage.
The reality is that this is the culmination of more than a decade of this Government’s hostile environment policy that, as everyone knows, is nothing more than a dog-whistle, anti-immigrant, racist agenda that prevents some of the most vulnerable people on Earth from seeking sanctuary on our shores, and has perhaps been too successful by far. On top of this, the Government have continued to push their inhumane Nationality and Borders Bill through this House. I believe that the Home Secretary should hang her head in shame and explain why we are the only country in Europe that has failed to offer an accessible route to reunite refugees with their families. By comparison, our partners across Europe have thrown open their borders, slashed red tape and taken countless vulnerable families.
In their hour of need, we can and must do better for millions of Ukrainians. It is completely unacceptable that already exhausted people, who have travelled hundreds of miles, women and children, are being asked to jump through multiple arduous and unrealistic hoops, while they wait nervously for weeks to find out whether they will be admitted. The best our Government appear to be able to offer is a do-it-yourself asylum scheme, where UK householders are asked to name refugees they wish to sponsor, which would suggest we are asking Ukrainian refugees to essentially crowd source their own asylum applications.
That is why we in the Labour party are calling for emergency protection visas for those fleeing Ukraine who wish to reach the UK. This would lift normal visa requirements other than biometrics and security checks, which can be swiftly done en route. That would provide a quick, simple and safe route to sanctuary for all who need it.
It will have escaped no one that, despite so little being done to help Ukrainians as they face the horrors of war, it is still far more support than was offered just months ago to those who were fleeing the brutal horrors of the oncoming Taliban regime in Afghanistan. In my Ilford South office, we still have more than 220 active cases of Afghan refugees, some of which are still receiving boiler-plate responses from the Home Office and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Many are of people trying to flee Afghanistan because they continue to face oppression and threats to their lives; they are often people who worked directly with the UK Government. That is totally unacceptable. The promises we made at the time to take only 20,000 people over the next four years were deplorable, but showed the true face of our immigration and refugee policy.
On the issue of sanctions against Russia, it is clear we must go far further to cut out the rot of dirty Russian money in our political system. Despite repeated warnings over many years, our Government, far from failing to act, have openly embraced the oligarchic wealth that was stolen from the Russian people after the fall of the Soviet Union, and made Britain the destination of choice for kleptocrats, who hide their loot under our noses, not far from the very building we sit in. It should not have taken the invasion of Ukraine for the Government to take action. The moves to sanction individuals and freeze assets are long overdue, after repeated calls by Members on both sides of this House.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
Did my hon. Friend watch the coverage of the occupation of Mr Deripaska’s mansion yesterday? None of us condones that kind of behaviour, but there were more Crown servants there yesterday than there are in the Treasury asset freezing team. Surely, for too long now, we have been soft on oligarchs and soft on the causes of oligarchs, and what we now need are proper sanction powers to go after the properties and to actually seize, not merely freeze, the assets.
Sam Tarry
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention, and I see the frustration that people have felt that has led them to take direct action to make the point he makes.
That nicely brings me to my next point, which is about how unsurprising it is that the Conservative party has been so reluctant to crack down on these individuals as it would mean biting the hand that feeds it, whether that is our own Prime Minister ignoring the warnings of our security services before ennobling Evgeny Lebedev, the son of a billionaire Russian banker and former KGB officer, or as I said earlier in the debate, accepting £30,000 from the wife of a former crony of Vladimir Putin so they could dine with a former Defence Secretary and be given a private tour of the Churchill war rooms. That is unacceptable. These people walk in the same circles. This is the problem we see today.
Given that the Conservative party is so easily bought, major questions over Russian financial influence need to be addressed. That has potentially jeopardised our national security and corrupted the very politics and democracy that we seek to uphold. If Britain is to be seen at this moment as taking a new approach of compassion—genuine compassion—towards refugees, we should also take this moment to root out that dark money and truly defend democracy by cleaning up our politics, so that we can look Mr Putin and the people in the Kremlin in the eye with democracy in our hearts and defiance against totalitarianism in our eyes.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry). I am not going to make a party political point, I hope, but I would just gently remind him and the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) that it was in 2008 that the golden visas were introduced—2008—and who was the Prime Minister then?
Can I begin by thanking all those across my North Dorset constituency who have helped, donated goods or raised money for the people of Ukraine? Svetlana Parkinson is a volunteer who has galvanised a whole army of people operating out of the Exchange in Sturminster Newton, Shaftesbury town hall and Blandford Forum’s Ginger Viking. Tonnes of aid are coming through, with Johnson’s of Gillingham, South West Packaging, Dike & Son, Dorset Council and everybody rallying to help. I think this is important, and we will all have stories such as this in our constituencies. As Russia shows us the worst of mankind, we show our best and others show their best.
A lot of colleagues have spoken about the history of Ukraine, and many of us will recall the dead hand of Russia and its influence over its then satellite states and empire. When I was a young boy growing up in Cardiff, we had a large Polish Catholic community, and I share their faith group. The only time I ever raised money for a trade union was when we had bring and buys or jumble sales for Solidarity, which fought against Russia to bring democracy and liberty. Many of us will remember the moving scenes at Mrs Thatcher’s last party conference as Prime Minister when lots of leaders of newly liberated countries hugged her in thanks for the sterling work that she and Ronald Reagan did in pointing out to people that the flame of human liberty was still alive, and would never and could never be extinguished. The challenge we have with Ukraine today is that we cannot see a resurrection of that Russian empire.
I am principally motivated in my political life by Stefan Terlezki, who, as you will remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, was the Member for Cardiff West. His story was the story of the tragedy of Ukraine during the war. As a young man, he was sold into slavery by the Germans and the Russians, and then back again, but went on to become a Member of Parliament. I remember him telling me the horror stories of that time, and we should never allow Ukraine to go back to that.
Let me say a few words about refugees. I welcomed yesterday’s announcement. The scheme needs to be safe and swift, kept under constant review, and tweaked to meet new demands. The Home Office now needs to change its response attitude and its mindset. Hitherto, it has been trying to make peacetime rules serve wartime needs. That will not work; it has to change, and it has to show flexibility. I would much prefer it that we mirrored what the Republic of Ireland has done, rather than criticise that.
I hear Ministers talk about security. Nick Bailey, my constituent, nearly lost his life because of the Salisbury poisoning. My constituency is close to Salisbury, and many people go there. I cannot believe that we are the only country that takes the security of our nation and people seriously. We all do, and I urge that even at this stage, we give serious consideration to waiving visas. Principally, we are taking in only elderly men and women, and women with children.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is doing a fantastic job in rallying and corralling the international response. However, some of the narrative suggests that it is a competition of league tables about who is doing best and who has done more. We are all in this together, because politics, when it is at its best, is values-based. Actions and inactions have consequences, and we need to pull together.
Bob Stewart
I want to place on record something about which I think the House will agree, which is that our Defence Ministers were far-sighted in the way they helped Ukraine. They gave Ukraine the means to fight back, and the training to help it, and some percentage of the success is down to what the Ministry of Defence in this country did to help our Ukrainian friends. Thank you, Defence Ministers, all of you.
Simon Hoare
I agree with my right hon. Friend, and if our MOD ministerial team did not exist, we would have to create them. They have done a sterling job, and thank heavens for the Secretary of State.
Actions have to have consequences, and not just for Russia. The Government should enter into no free trade agreement, or indeed free trade agreement talks, with any country that is either supporting Russia or being ambivalent in resolutions condemning it. If the Commonwealth is anything, it is a Commonwealth of values, and those who are not prepared to step up to the plate and champion those values collectively should probably see their membership suspended. I was a rebel on what the Government wanted to do with aid. I am a firm supporter of overseas aid, and I voted against the cut. However, aid should not be given to those countries that will not stand shoulder to shoulder with the rest of the international community and ensure that our values are defended. It is an outrage that Russia still has a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. If we are not seeking ways to remove it, we jolly well should be.
I have mentioned values-based politics, and in my judgment, NATO can and indeed should be a values- defending organisation, as well as defending the physical territory of member states. NATO could act now in a far more robust way than it is doing. I urge our American friends to understand that leadership of the free world is more than a lapel badge, and that it carries responsibilities to act in defence of those values. I hear people say, “Ah, but Russia has got a nuclear deterrent. That has to constrain our response.” Well Russia is always going to have a nuclear deterrent. What happens if Russia moves into the Baltic states, or others? It will still have a nuclear deterrent, and Putin is still unstable enough to wish to use it. We need the international resolve that we rightly deployed in Kuwait—a sovereign country was invaded aggressively and unnecessarily, and the international community rallied to defend it. We have to defend Ukraine. We have to do as much as we can, whatever and however it needs to be done, and pray God we do it quickly. Ukraine will prevail. We can envisage no other finale.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Member for mentioning Stefan Terlezki. He was a man of true spirit and full of enthusiasm who gave me massive support as a young Conservative to enter politics.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a genuine pleasure to be part of this instructive and informative debate. We have had excellent contributions from across the House, reflecting how the House is united in standing with Ukraine. The integrity and resolve of both the Ukrainian Government and the Ukrainian people have awakened and unified the world. We were all inspired last week by President Zelensky’s address to the House. We stand with Ukraine and are determined to do all that we can to defeat Russia. As has been said many times, Putin cannot win.
I want to reflect, as other hon. Members have, on Marina Ovsyannikova’s incredible protest yesterday on Russian television. We must not forget that Putin does not act in the name of every Russian, so I want to take the opportunity to express solidarity with those Russian people fighting within Russia against the oppression that they face.
I will reflect on what my constituents have been saying to me and raise refugees and visas. In particular, I will talk about constituent casework from people who have been trying to get family members out of Ukraine. Charlie Hewitt and his Ukrainian wife Olga have been trying to get family members over, but they have battled and battled with UK visa processes. Charlie told me that he felt “baffled, ashamed and insulted”. He has taken his wife and her relatives to his second home in Spain, which does not demand visas from refugees.
Emma Truman raised the case of a friend of hers, who is another constituent of mine. He travelled to Ukraine to collect his elderly father. His father was forced to travel from Warsaw to the British embassy in Italy to collect his visa and, having travelled there the week before, could not get an appointment until Friday 11 March, so my constituent had to leave him there. Now he has to wait another five days while his elderly father is alone in Italy.
Tanya Luczkiw contacted us about her family members who had applied for visas. She has paid over €1,000 for visas, including for Valeria, an unaccompanied minor who turned 11 years old yesterday. Again, we see backlog, delay and difficulty. I am offended on behalf of my constituents that they are struggling with the system. So many of us have stood here so many times and said that we stand with Ukraine, but we are not standing with these Ukrainians. We are not making it easier for them. We are not helping them in their battle against the Russian state.
I welcome yesterday’s announcement by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities of the Homes for Ukraine scheme, not least because nearly 100 constituents have contacted me to say that they are desperate to help, have space in their homes and want to accommodate Ukrainians. I was really pleased to hear that announcement, but I am anxious about us having to find our own refugees and name them before they can come here.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Most of us will have similar cases of both those who want to help and those who need help with family members. Does the hon. Member agree that that Government ought, as they did over covid, to start taking out massive advertisements in local newspapers to explain to people how the system is adapting and how people can help or get help?
Sarah Olney
I agree. I am also getting an awful lot of inquiries from people who do not have rooms to offer but want to help in other ways, so I would really like to see a co-ordinated campaign to harness all the good will that people have towards the people of Ukraine and what we can do practically to support them.
The Government are not providing people in this country with a way to identify refugees whom they can sponsor—they have outsourced that or said that charities could provide it. It is really important that we can match the incredible good will and effort with those people who really need it. The Government must do more to match refugees in Poland or other countries who need shelter with people here who are willing to help. Just saying that people can sponsor a refugee is not good enough if they do not know how to find or help them.
I am really grateful to a charity in my constituency called Refugees Welcome in Richmond, which came to see me on Friday. It is very concerned that the renewed focus on Ukrainian refugees will obscure the effort that is still going on to rehome our Afghan refugees. So many of them are still in hotels and I would really like to see a renewed focus on getting them resettled. I think the situations are different: we need immediate, potentially temporary shelter for women and children fleeing Ukraine; and our Afghan refugees—whole families—need permanent resettlement. The requirements are different. The effort to resettle one group does not need to take up the efforts already employed in resettling the other.
I want to talk a little about energy supply. The current crisis has focused everybody’s minds on where we get our energy from. I welcome the moves, not just from the UK but across the EU and elsewhere, to reduce dependence on Russian oil and gas. That will be a pivotal part of our sanctions. The transition away has to be a green one. We have to focus on investing in renewables and a comprehensive retrofitting scheme to improve energy efficiency and reduce demand. As well as helping us to achieve our net zero goals and reduce dependence on Russian oil and gas, it will be a huge help to low-income families in the face of rising fuel prices. I want to see a replacement for the green homes grant, which failed so desperately to deliver the commitment to insulation, in particular for low-income families.
I worry about our Prime Minister’s visit today to Saudi Arabia. My understanding is that he has gone to speak to the Saudi regime about increasing its oil output. I worry he has taken the wrong lessons from the past few weeks, if he is cosying up to another autocratic regime who, let us not forget, executed 81 people last week. If we are merely reorienting the supply of oil to us from Russia to Saudi Arabia, that is not sustainable and that is not the way forward.
I reiterate that if we are standing with Ukraine, we are standing with Ukrainian refugees. We must do more. People in this country want to help them, identify them and bring them over. I really want us to use this moment to recommit to renewable energy and an insulation revolution right across this country, starting with our low-income households, so we can provide them with real support in reducing their fuel bills.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Poland is playing such a critical role at this juncture in helping her neighbour to the east, I just want to say a few words as the only Polish-born British Member of Parliament in the Chamber and as chairman of the all- party parliamentary group on Poland. Some 84 Members have joined our group, making it one of the largest. If any colleague wishes to join, we would welcome them with open arms.
I remember 40 years ago being at school in Buckinghamshire when martial law was declared in Poland. The Russians, 40 years ago, were threatening an invasion of Poland to suppress and destroy the Solidarity movement and Lech Wałęsa, who were fighting for their freedom to escape the clutches of Soviet oppression and get out from behind the iron curtain. One of the most emotional things I experienced as a child was coming to school one day in 1982 and seeing huge numbers of lorries parked outside. Every child had brought food parcels to the school to send to Poland, because they saw on their television screens how the economy had disintegrated, and how martial law and the brutal communist dictator Jaruzelski had created food queues. Nothing was actually functioning. Now, 40 years on, I am very proud that the Polish diaspora here in the United Kingdom has played a tremendous role in gathering food, medicines and clothing to be sent to Poland to help Ukrainian refugees. The Polish community in this country is now almost 1 million strong. I pay tribute to my close friend Anna Buckley, who runs a Polish school in Wrexham, and to my friend Bogusław Malinowski, who is a member of the Shrewsbury Conservatives; they and many other Poles have been in touch with me and have been organising deliveries of food, clothing and medicine to Ukrainians. Poland has taken in more than 1.5 million Ukrainian refugees, and the figure is rising all the time. Polish people understand how interdependent they are with their eastern neighbour and how important it is to help at this time.
I have got to know the Ukrainian ambassador, my friend Vadym Prystaiko, over the past few years in my campaign against the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which many of us see as a tremendous threat to Ukraine and to our NATO partners in central and eastern Europe. I bowed my head to him and apologised that so many of us did not fully come to terms with or recognise the step-by-step salami-slicing tactics of the Russian Government. We should have realised that South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea were major warning signs that this lunatic was starting to get out of control and would cause a major conflagration on our continent. When I was on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, we visited Donetsk and Luhansk, but even then, when we saw the tremendous destruction, I was not fully cognisant of the potential dangers ahead, so I have apologised to the Ukrainian ambassador.
Putin is trying to ethnically cleanse Ukraine. He wants to target civilians and destroy residential areas because he wants to ethnically cleanse that beautiful country and Russify it. That is why it is essential for Britain to take a lead in creating a Marshall plan to help countries such as Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Moldova, which between them have taken more than 95% of all Ukrainian refugees. Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania have the comfort of being NATO partners, so we know we stand by them under article 5—if the Russians cross that fence, both sides know what the ramifications will be for both sides—but Moldova does not have that protection. Just yesterday, the Prime Minister of Moldova, Natalia Gavrilita, said that her country is really struggling to cope with the 200,000 refugees who have poured across the border.
I recognise the need for us in the United Kingdom to support Ukrainian refugees coming to our shores, particularly those who have family already here; I have reached out to my Ukrainians in Shrewsbury. I appeal to the Opposition: if you want to hold the Government to account, as we do, please focus on how they are going to take a lead on our continent to create a Marshall plan in conjunction with the European Union and America to help our NATO partners such as Poland. We do not know how long this war will go on. We want to stand by them financially to give them the support they need to sustain looking after the Ukrainians, so that the Ukrainians are never ethnically driven away from their region by this brutal dictator.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
This week marks eight years since the late, great Tony Benn sadly passed away. In one of his most famous speeches in this House, he recounted living in London during the blitz. He spoke of huddling in bomb shelters each night and of awaking each morning to a city on fire. Speaking to oppose military intervention in Iraq, he recounted the horror that he had felt as Nazi bombs rained down on London. With plans to give the green light for British bombs to fall on Iraq, he asked Parliament to see Iraqis’ humanity too. “Don’t Iraqis feel terror?”, he asked. “Don’t they weep when their children die?”
Benn’s speech has become a universal anti-war statement and is just as relevant today. Today, it is Ukrainians huddling in shelters each night and seeing their cities on fire each morning. Today, it is Ukrainians who live in terror as Putin’s bombs rain down on them, and who weep for their murdered children.
Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine has rightly been unequivocally condemned throughout the House, and I join colleagues in calling for an urgent ceasefire with every effort made to reach a diplomatic end before more lives are lost and an even more terrifying wider European war is triggered. However, amid the darkness we have seen extraordinary bravery and humanity, and not just from the Ukrainian people themselves—from the courage of Russian anti-war activists risking repression to speak out against the war, such as Marina Ovsyannikova, who last night protested live on national television, to the compassion of the British public who have opened their hearts to the Ukrainian people. I am proud that in Coventry, a city of sanctuary, local groups have been collecting donations for refugees. Across the country, more than 100,000 people have signed up to welcome Ukrainian refugees into their homes.
This is a testament to the common decency of the people, but, for all their talk, the Government have not matched that decency. Their DIY asylum scheme passes the buck, individualising a problem that demands a collective solution. Refugee groups warn that it does not go far or fast enough, with the most vulnerable, such as unaccompanied children, the most likely to be left behind. I therefore join the likes of the Refugee Council in calling on the Government to follow the example set by our European neighbours and waive visas for Ukrainians seeking sanctuary.
This brutal war has exposed some uncomfortable truths. Each night on TV we witness new horrors befalling the people of Ukraine. We hear the terror in their voices, and see the tears as they weep for their children. We rightly stand in solidarity with them and welcome Ukrainian refugees, but the Government should not limit that solidarity. This month marks eight years since the beginning of the Saudi-led war on Yemen, which has claimed more than a quarter of a million lives and pushed 20 million people to the brink of starvation. As experts have made clear, that war would not be possible without the Government’s support and the £20 billion-worth of arms that they have sold to the Saudi regime since it began.
Like Tony Benn, I ask, “Don’t Yemenis feel terror as well? Don’t they weep for their children when they die? Do we not owe them solidarity too?” From Putin’s slaughter in Syria, where he aided and abetted Assad in war crimes, to the bombs dropped in the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, events make us ask, “Don’t they feel terror when bombs are dropped on their homes? Don’t they weep when their children die? Do we not owe them solidarity too?” But instead, our Government respond with laws such as the Nationality and Borders Bill, dubbed the anti-refugee Bill because it will break our 70-year-long commitment to the 1951 refugee convention.
In that speech, Tony Benn brought to light our shared humanity and the horrors of war. As Putin’s bombs rain down on Ukrainian cities and destroy them, it is as clear as ever that that lesson still applies today. We must stand firm against wars of aggression, and in solidarity with all who flee their horrors.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
My constituents and I have watched the plight of Ukrainians in horror. We have witnessed the appalling actions of Putin and Russia, the murder of civilians, senseless bloodshed to satisfy a man’s historical grievance. People often try to make sense of evil actions by ascribing them to some form of mental illness—lunacy, insanity, not thinking rationally—rather than confronting the sad truth that evil actions are performed by evil men. Levelling cities, forcing women and children in their millions to flee, lying and lying while watching one’s own country and its citizens become impoverished—that is not insanity; it is evil. It is often said that liberty is not free and peace comes at a price, but central to peace is a commitment to the rule of law. Evil men and evil deeds must be countered, condemned and criminalised, and the perpetrators must be convicted.
I strongly support the UK’s approach in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine—the supply of defensive weapons, the sanctions, the humanitarian aid and our refugee response—and I want to speak briefly about the last two of those.
I support the UK embargo on Russian oil and gas. It cannot be right that as we heat our homes and fill our cars and trucks, we are bankrolling the Russian war machine, but we need to go further and faster: we need to stop dead the imports of Russian war fuel. Someone said that the current situation demonstrates why we cannot pursue net zero. I strongly believe that it shows the opposite. Never has it been more important to have clean, domestic energy and to be dependent on no one else but ourselves. Imagine if we had that now. I am reminded of the saying that the best time to plant a tree is 50 years ago, but the second best time is today. This is why we need to crack on with expanding renewables and nuclear and supporting UK gas and oil during this transition period to clean domestic energy production.
Turning to the humanitarian response and our support for refugees, the people of Runnymede and Weybridge stand ready and willing to help. As always, our community response and the incredible offers of help have been amazing. It is not surprising that my constituents have come forward in such a way to support Ukrainians, as was seen just a couple of weeks ago at the “Stand with Ukraine” rally in Weybridge. I welcome the recent Homes for Ukraine announcement. I am concerned however, that the most vulnerable refugees may end up being disenfranchised. It strikes me that there is a danger that the system may be easier to go through for Ukrainian refugees who are more internationalist or who speak English. It is important that the scheme is monitored carefully as it is rolled out, enhanced and changed, to ensure that we support all refugees, not just people who have particular strengths in personal advocacy.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making a powerful speech. On that note, we have heard throughout this debate that the Ukrainian refugees coming to the UK will be some of the most vulnerable, including older people, children and, especially, unaccompanied children. Is it not important that we ensure that the people offering their homes are fully vetted to ensure that they are providing a genuine safe haven for people fleeing a war zone?
Dr Spencer
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. Just yesterday, I asked the Secretary of State to ensure that there was not only historical vetting but ongoing support for the people and the families who open their homes, to ensure that no one takes advantage of people’s vulnerability. Of course, there is always going to be a balance, and we need to crack on and get people over here as soon as possible, but the hon. Lady is right to say that ongoing safeguarding is a critical issue.
I worry that we will see even more huge movements of people. That is inevitable, and we need to strongly support dispersing people from Poland, where they are struggling. I repeat my call to work with our European allies to do this and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said, to tackle the people smugglers and support the most vulnerable refugees. As we watch the horror and bloodshed in Ukraine and the murder of our fellow human beings, our brothers and sisters, we are all hurting. We want to do more and we want to see it stop, but the future is murky. Each path forward is beset with challenge and danger. Where is the golden bridge for Putin and Russia? I hope and pray that it is found soon, but if anyone can find it, President Zelensky can.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
As Russia’s unjustifiable assault continues, it is important that we in the international community do everything in our power to bring this unprovoked invasion to an end. Equally, while we wait for that time, we should be doing all we can to support those most affected—those who are fleeing. We have heard a great deal of criticism of the Government’s response to the Ukrainian refugee crisis. Unfortunately, the overwhelming bulk of that criticism is fully justified. The Government’s response has been late, half-hearted, partial and discriminatory. We can rightly be proud of the response of the British public to the crisis, however. So many of them have opened their hearts and their purses, and now we hear that hundreds of thousands have even offered to open their homes. The response of the Government in no way reflects this generosity of spirit or this international solidarity. Worse, Ministers seem to believe that the appropriate response to justified criticism is to attack, or that the response to serious shortcomings is self-congratulation. It is simply not enough compared with our counterparts across Europe.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), the shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, was right to be critical of the latest Government plan. As she said, it is not a plan but a press release. It is a DIY refugee scheme. I remind Ministers that we are a signatory to international treaties governing the treatment of refugees. None of them states, “You can let in some people who want to come, depending on the generosity of your own citizens.” That is not international law. The legal position is that refugees have the right to seek asylum and that states are obligated to grant it, where appropriate. That does not mean directing people to non-existent processing centres in Calais or to a secretly located centre somewhere in Lille. It does not mean denying refuge to people from a war-torn region because they do not have relatives here. I know the visa scheme has since been extended, but it is a visa scheme, which is not how the asylum system has worked.
I am sorry to say these failings have become customary under this Government and their predecessors. The Government have failed to meet either their legal or moral obligations since they took office in 2010. There have been attempts to push back refugees in the channel, refugees have been kept in buildings that are not fit for habitation and some have contracted serious disease in unsanitary conditions. We have seen others, including British citizens, wrongly deported from this country.
It should never be forgotten that this Government and their predecessors are indelibly stained by the continuing Windrush scandal. They are also yet to provide an adequate response to the many hon. Members who have raised the situation of African and Asian students in Ukraine who face discrimination while fleeing the war. Many might ask what that has to do with us, but this Government would surely like to send a message that no race or nationality is more worthy of safe passage or refuge than any other. The Government’s responses to date are woefully lacking.
Even in the light of all that, the Government persist with their anti-refugee Nationality and Borders Bill. We have to conclude that, like Pavlov’s dog, Ministers’ reflexes take over when they hear the words “migrants” and “refugees,” and their reflexes are distasteful and objectionable. They are not the reflexes of the people of this country, who are empathetic, charitable and giving.
As we have already heard, yesterday we marked eight years since the death of the late, great Tony Benn. Whenever I speak about this Government’s treatment of refugees, I am reminded that he said:
“The way a Government treats refugees is very instructive because it shows you how they would treat the rest of us if they thought they could get away with it.”
My advice to this Government would be to be more like the British people in their treatment of refugees, before the British people see them for who they really are.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
This has been a fascinating and wide-ranging debate. The hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) made an incredible speech. It was one of the best, and it got to the nub of the military side. It was a fantastic speech.
I was at the Rose-Roth seminar of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Kyiv in 2016, and it was noticeable that a Ukrainian former member of the Minsk group said:
“Appeasers of Russia must go.”
He called it a “Chamberlain complex” and believed it was
“a fundamental failure that people feel they can work with Putin. He gets away with it. The international community must recognise that Russia’s actions are not against just Ukraine, but the whole world.”
That was in relation to the invasion of Crimea.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) had a Backbench Business debate in our first week back this year on the Russian threat, and at the end of my speech I made the point that we have to accept that we are back in a cold war situation and that we must adopt a cold war mentality again. That includes increases in defence spending, on which we have seen an incredible and welcome change in position—I do not call it a U-turn—from the German Government, who have said they will spend 2.2% of GDP on defence, as laid down in the 2014 Wales summit. That is indeed welcome in bolstering NATO, because people are now recognising that whether we like it or not, we are back in a cold war scenario, which means that we have to get the playbooks back out. They are about standing up and pushing back. I have often spoken in the House on various issues about countermeasures and counterbalances, and this situation is about counterbalances. This is about saying to Russia, “Don’t try to push the envelope, because we will push back.”
People who are trying to be apologists for Putin have said, “It was the NATO expansion to the east.” NATO did not expand to the east; the east wanted to join NATO. That is a very subtle difference. The people of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are jolly well grateful today that they have got the backing of NATO, because I do not think they would be sleeping easily in their beds if they felt that Russia may be able to just walk through.
Dr Julian Lewis
Does my right hon. Friend agree that Mr Putin’s claim that he is worried about having a NATO country directly on his border if Ukraine joins NATO is rather given the lie by the fact that if he occupies Ukraine, he will have several NATO countries on his border?
Alec Shelbrooke
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for that, because he touches on something very important. The drive to NATO membership accelerated substantially after Russia had invaded Crimea. Putin invited that move of the Ukrainian Government to look further to the west, as they saw their security threatened. A real analysis could be done of what Putin was doing in and around Ukraine three or four months ago. Was he probing to see what the reactions of the west would be? Was he thinking, “What could happen here? Perhaps I will focus my attentions elsewhere, in the ‘Stans or areas like that.” We have merely to read or analyse the Putin essay for it to become apparent how far this Third Reich mentality of his goes. He makes clear in that essay the centuries-held hatred towards the sacking of Kyiv, the capital of Rus. He also makes clear in that essay the countries he is going to go after—Lithuania, eastern Poland, Belarus; he basically names them. He uses the phrase “Russia was robbed”.
Simon Hoare
My right hon. Friend is hitting the nail on the head, because we know where this ends. Adolf Hitler did not accept the settlement at the end of the first world war and sought vengeance, and Putin has never taken the almost self-inflicted degradation of the Russian empire internally. He is like a bear with a sore head and that is potentially dangerous for a large number of people on the European continent.
Alec Shelbrooke
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that, as it leads on to what my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) was saying—that the analysis that Putin has gone mad, has a terminal disease or is suffering as a result of steroids is probably just our trying to understand the reasoning of an evil man. There are more history books that analyse Hitler’s motivations and what happened than are written on anything else. There are so many parallels to be drawn with the situation we find ourselves in today, because Putin has kept testing and pushing. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) said, when the chemical weapons were dropped in Syria it was a huge mistake that nothing was done, purely because President Obama had said that it was a red line that would not be tolerated. If we are going to tolerate it, we should not say that in the first place, because we can now draw a chronological line from that moment to what has happened.
Let us remember that Putin has caused the assassination of people in Berlin, and the Russians have blown up a NATO arms depot in the Czech Republic and launched a chemical weapon attack on the UK. All those things happened in NATO countries and all were met with a limited response, although it was notable that after the Salisbury attack allies from countries outside NATO also got together to remove diplomats from their embassies. Nevertheless, Putin has disregarded the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty, used Syria as a training ground and is agitating the situation in the Balkans.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that we must be responsible to ensure there is not an escalation, but if we do not stand strong, we invite that escalation. As I have said, we have to take a cold war approach, which means doing things that, quite frankly, will probably frighten us all, but we must make sure that the message is clear: our NATO nuclear arsenal is on the same stand-by as the Russian nuclear arsenal. We do not have nuclear weapons in order to use them; we have nuclear weapons to ensure they are not used. That is why Trident is described as a nuclear deterrent: it is a weapon used every day to prevent it from being used. If it is used, it is a complete failure of everything—but frankly we will not be here to have that argument. It is a weapon used every day to keep the peace.
Every day, we are seeing murder take place on a wide scale, at the hands of an invading country. We have not yet seen the destruction of Kyiv, as Putin did to Grozny, or the use of chemical weapons. If those things happen, there will be huge demands for intervention—not necessarily from NATO but from countries that want to help with air support. Please let us not get to that stage. As other right hon. and hon. Members have said, let us make sure that the MiG fighters can get to Ukraine. They do not have to match in numbers the Ukrainian air force because—I remind everybody—in the second world war the Luftwaffe considerably outnumbered the RAF, but that absolute determination to defend our homeland came through.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
My thoughts and prayers and those of the constituents of Rutherglen and Hamilton West remain with the people of Ukraine throughout this time of hardship. Their bravery in the face of this conflict is admirable.
There have been times in recent weeks when the Government’s humanitarian response has been somewhat lacking, but I thank the FCDO for its daily briefings and the Secretary of State for Defence for his considered and informative updates to the House. I am also grateful for the meetings and work that goes on behind the scenes, which our constituents do not see.
The outpouring of generosity across the UK has been extraordinary, and my constituency has been no exception. I mention in particular Rain or Shine in Cambuslang, which has co-ordinated at great speed an overwhelming response from the community and organised getting the many, many donations to where they are needed. The UK public has shown beyond doubt that we stand with Ukraine and do not accept the illegal and reprehensible actions of President Putin.
In the January debate to mark Holocaust Memorial Day, I said that we might take for granted the privilege of freedom that we have if we cannot imagine the atrocities of the war occurring now on UK soil. The escalation of events in Ukraine since January have brought that sentiment into much sharper focus. I am sure none of us imagined that a war of this scale would be seen in Europe in modern times.
Putin’s invasion is not just illegal, or immoral: it is an affront to democracy and to the values of Europe and its people. It is the oppression of the freedom of hundreds of thousands of innocent people to feed the ego of one man. It is imperative that we all bear in mind that this is not about the millions of ordinary Russian citizens, both those still in Russia and those here in the UK. The huge number of Russians who put themselves at risk by going out to protest against this war perfectly illustrate that. We should condemn Putin and the enablers who surround him, but we must not allow a generalised anti-Russian sentiment to grow. Not only are ordinary Russians not responsible for this conflict, but so many of them fundamentally disagree with it.
Like all Members, I have been inundated with emails from constituents sharing their thoughts on the conflict. Although our individual and personal power to do anything might be limited, there is power in numbers. By far the most common issue that my constituents want to see addressed is visas and our offer to Ukrainian refugees. There has been some movement on that. I spoke in yesterday’s Westminster Hall debate, so I will not labour the point. I will, however, reiterate that the Government must do all they can to remove the red tape and now move at speed to ensure that Ukrainians can access sanctuary in the UK. The Scottish Government have been vocal about their intention to take in as many refugees as they can under their super-sponsor status. I hope that the UK Government will enable them to do so as swiftly as possible.
My constituents would also like to see the Government providing substantial humanitarian aid to the countries neighbouring Ukraine, such as Poland, Romania and Moldova, which are on the frontline of the refugee crisis and taking the lion’s share of the humanitarian response right now. I have also seen a huge number of constituents extremely concerned about the measures in the Nationality and Borders Bill, which will come back to this House soon. That is not by any means a new concern, but this new context has renewed the strength of feeling, and the calls in opposition, to legislation that is in direct contrast to the UK’s proud history of providing safety to those who need it most. The Bill fails to make the essential distinction between refugee and migrant and my constituents have highlighted the need for more safe routes to the UK and the removal of the criminalisation of refugees.
At the heart of any war are the people. Ukrainians have shown pride in their country and have fought back commendably. Most refugees are only looking for a brief reprieve and a safe house until it is safe to return home. My constituents and I wholeheartedly support any measures that will provide that. Imagine having suddenly to flee your home and leave the life you knew behind, with only a few belongings to your name, not knowing if your home will still be standing, if and when you are ever able to return, and knowing that you are unlikely to be able to communicate effectively and ask for help because you do not know the language wherever you first land.
That applies even more so for children, the elderly and the vulnerable who do not have the same autonomy as a healthy, able-bodied adult. They may not even grasp what is happening when they are having to leave. Any one of us would be frightened at the very thought of it, never mind the reality. Any assurances or comfort that are within this Government’s gift must be freely given to alleviate whatever small part of that fear we can.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
First, I wish to send my solidarity to all the victims of Putin’s invasion. Thousands have lost their lives, so many have been injured, many more have been forced to flee their homes or now face a humanitarian crisis. We need an immediate end to the loss of life and suffering. That means that the Russian state must call a permanent ceasefire and withdraw its troops. As the United Nations General Secretary has repeatedly said, instead of more war, there must be a diplomatic solution to this dangerous crisis, one that respects the UN charter and delivers peace, security and human rights. Reports overnight, including from President Zelensky, suggest a glimmer of hope on that front. We must do all we can to support such efforts.
No matter how quickly this horrific situation ends, it will take years for Ukraine’s economy to recover and for lives to be rebuilt. So Ukrainians should not be forced to divert desperately needed resources to debt repayments. Ukraine faces debt payments of $7 billion this year alone and, so far, there has been no offer of suspension or cancellation of debts. The vast majority of emergency funding has been new loans, so Ukraine’s debt is ballooning. Surely, as an act of solidarity, all of Ukraine’s debts should be cancelled.
I want to put on record my utter shame at the way our Government have delayed and restricted those fleeing the war in Ukraine from seeking sanctuary here. The Government should have waived all visa restrictions, as other countries have, and that should still be done. Let this be the moment when, after years of the hostile environment, we say with one resounding voice, “Refugees fleeing war, torture and persecution are welcome here. Refugees from the world over are welcome here.” Let us remember, too, the refugees fleeing conflicts that are often driven by our Government’s selling weapons to tyrants who then create humanitarian catastrophes, as we have seen, and as we see with horrific consequences in Yemen.
The people in our country have been so generous in spirit and have shown such practical solidarity, in contrast with a Government who have not gone far enough. Only the other weekend, I went to the Polish Catholic Centre in Leeds. People from all backgrounds across our community were arriving there in huge numbers to donate toothpaste, sanitary products, clothes and so many other things needed by people fleeing from Ukraine to Poland.
Beyond the immense suffering in Ukraine, however, this is a dangerous moment for the wider world. We must do all we can to ensure that this war does not spiral into a wider one, creating even more bloodshed. For example, a no-fly zone could lead to the nightmare scenario of direct conflict between Russia and NATO countries, which in turn risks a nuclear war between the two biggest nuclear powers on earth. Everything must be done to avoid that.
Finally, I extend a hand of solidarity to the brave protesters campaigning in Russia for an end to the war. Already this century we have seen too many wars. The example that Russian citizens protesting Putin’s war are setting us is truly inspirational. Who could not be moved by the recent scenes of the arrest of 76-year-old pensioner Yelena Osipova for opposing the war? Yelena survived the siege of Leningrad that killed an estimated 800,000 Russians in the second world war. Yelena knows the horrors of war and bravely opposes her Government’s adding to that suffering.
We must be clear that ordinary Russian people, whether in Russia or this country, are not to blame for the actions of their Government. It is a Government of kleptocrats, representing the interests of the billionaire robber barons, with their palaces and yachts paid for with the wealth stolen from the Russian people—so solidarity with those anti-war protesters. Already this century we have seen too many wars, and “Not in my name” has been the call of peace movements worldwide against them. Today, brave protesters in Russia are saying, “Not in my name.” I stand fully with them.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is an honour to speak in this important debate. I begin by paying tribute to President Zelensky, to the heroic men and women of the Ukrainian armed forces and to all the people of Ukraine, whose grit, resolve and courage in the face of this war and this bully are an inspiration to us all. I also commend our own excellent armed forces for the support they have given the Ukrainian army.
Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine is a grave attack not only on the Ukrainian people, but on sovereignty, democracy, freedom and the rule of law. I welcome the aid promised by our Government, but I have some questions about it. Can the Minister tell us how much has already been disbursed and where the aid will be disbursed to, and can he give us an assurance that projects for building peace in other areas around the world will not be displaced by the money being given to Ukraine? It would be not only morally wrong, but a false economy to stop peace and development in one region for Ukrainian aid in another. I hope he can give us assurances of that today.
I echo the sentiments of so many hon. Members and so many of my Putney constituents: refugees are welcome here. Too often until now, in their hour of need, desperate Ukrainians have been met with chaos, confusion and bureaucracy by the Home Office. We have been letting them down. I am pleased to see the improvements in the visa process, but I call on the Government to introduce an emergency protection visa for those fleeing Ukraine, who need to reach the UK as soon as possible. That would lift normal visa conditions, other than biometrics and security checks that can be swiftly done en route, providing a quick, simple and safe route to sanctuary for all who need it. They must also accept the Ministry of Defence’s offer of assistance to speed up the system and set up emergency centres, with information in Ukrainian about projects that we have here—the Homes for Ukraine project and others—so that people who are fleeing Ukraine can find out what they can do straightaway.
In my own constituency, I have been overwhelmed by the support and generosity of the people of Putney, who have written to me offering essential items and their spare rooms. I have spoken to churches, my local synagogue and local charities, which are unanimous in their belief that the Government must do more and which are ready to step up when called on.
One brilliant local charity, Refugees at Home, has already been working hard to pair residents with refugees. Its members have been finding host families for refugees and asylum seekers in the UK since 2015. They really are experts in the field of pairing refugees with homes. However, they are frustrated that better use is not being made of experienced schemes such as theirs. I seek assurance from the Minister that experienced local organisations will receive the support they need to contribute to making this scheme work and that it will not be set up to fail. Refugees at Home has said that
“matching hosts to guests requires sensitivity and experience, and it is important that homes are properly assessed prior to a placement being made. A simple DBS check is not enough. A proper home visit needs to be undertaken”,
there needs to be “follow-up support”, and
“move-on plans must be put in place”.
I call on the Minister to tell us how the pairings will be made. When I was an aid worker in Bosnia, I saw a lot of things during the war and after it, but the thing I most remember and most haunts me is the times I had to turn away people who were seeking aid—I had to make choices about whose home I could rebuild and not rebuild, the people I could give a food package to and not give a food package to. I will never forget that. We cannot put British people in the situation of having to do that. If they hear of a family desperate to come here, we cannot ask them to choose who they will pair with—who they will have in their home and who they will not—because that will be a decision they will never, ever be able to forget.
I would also like to highlight the risk to peace in the western Balkans. The violence in Ukraine makes clear Putin’s intention to fuel instability and division across the whole region, and the Balkans is no exception. Given the growing concerns about war in Bosnia, I hope that there will not be any destruction and that efforts for peace are redoubled. A good start would be a smart and creative sanctions policy on leaders in the western Balkans such as Milorad Dodik, who has already been sanctioned by the US and the EU for destabilising and corrupt activity and for attempts to dismantle the Dayton peace accords. Should we not consider sanctioning him and others, and not wait until it is too late to start talking about sanctions, as we did with Russia?
We can see the threat to peace in the western Balkans now and work with civil society organisations on the ground. The biggest threat to peace is to not have civil society organisations—the ordinary public—working for peace, and we can play our part in working with them. I have recently spoken to many that are doing fantastic work and they can do so much more with our support, as well as bolstering our NATO base there. There is not a moment to lose. It is not too late to take action for the western Balkans and we should act now before it is too late.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
A week ago, this House stood as one to salute President Zelensky, who told us:
“We will not give up and we will not lose.”
His address, like his leadership, was deeply moving and deeply inspiring. Our Parliament, that day, truly spoke for the British people. The House has done so again today, with 26 speakers making a wide range of points. But at the heart of what every speaker has said is that we in this House, and in this country, are unified in our solidarity with Ukraine and in our condemnation of President Putin’s invasion.
The Ukrainians are showing massive bravery—military and civilians alike. We must do all we can to support their resistance, and the Government have Labour’s full backing for military and intelligence assistance to Ukraine to defend itself. We welcomed the delivery of more than 3,600 NLAW anti-tank weapons. I hope that the Minister this afternoon will be able to confirm that the Starstreak missiles that the Ukrainians need to defend against Russian air attacks are also now being delivered.
It is clear that President Putin miscalculated on the resolve of the Ukrainian military and on the strength of his own Russian forces. Three weeks in, his forces are still only making limited progress. They have still only taken three cities, all in southern Ukraine. However, Russia has such crushing firepower and Putin has such utter ruthlessness that we must expect more of their military objectives to be taken in the weeks to come. Whatever the short-term gains Putin may secure, we must ensure that he fails in the long run through Ukrainian resistance, tougher sanctions, more humanitarian help, wider international isolation, justice for war crimes being committed and, above all, long-term western unity and NATO unity.
More immediately, I fear that we must expect further escalation in Kremlin rhetoric and in the merciless attacks on civilians, yet these are the very tactics that are hardening resistance in Ukraine, and leading to protests in Russia and unified opposition in the wider world. Putin will have to negotiate, perhaps from a position of weakness, rather than strength, but certainly we must make that happen sooner, rather than later. All diplomatic efforts are needed to secure a ceasefire, negotiations and a full Russian withdrawal.
When Britain was one of the original guarantors, alongside Russia and the US, of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in the 1994 Budapest agreement, it is deeply disappointing that today our British Prime Minister is playing a bit part on the margins of international diplomacy as France, Germany and the US—not Britain—lead the way.
John Healey
The Minister shakes his head, but let me ask about China. China called yesterday for maximum restraint in Ukraine. Has the Prime Minister spoken to President Xi since the conflict began? When did the Foreign Secretary last speak to her Chinese counterpart? Was that since or before the invasion?
I turn to the contributions from many Members, which I think were in four sections and had four hallmarks. The first was great insight and expertise, and I will only recognise those Members who have returned to the Chamber for the wind-ups.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am checking on that, and it is somewhat disgraceful that there are Members who have taken part in this debate who are not here for the wind-ups. I am saying that as loudly as I can in the hope that it will be heard across this building. The right hon. Gentleman is right to make that point. As a matter of courtesy to him, those Members ought to be here.
John Healey
I am less concerned about courtesy to me; I am concerned about courtesy to the House and the public, for whom we speak and are here to represent.
Turning to the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), when I talk about great expertise and insight, no one has done more about and knows more about human trafficking, and her warning about traffickers operating from day one among the refugees fleeing Ukraine is a serious wake-up call. She urges work with the UN agencies, tech companies, refugee groups and law enforcement agencies. She urges the Home Secretary to act, and I hope she gets more of a response than we have seen to date.
Turning to another true expert in the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is an expert on Russia, with a long track record of exposing Russian corruption and urging action on the dirty money that keeps Putin in power. He has worked hard to get the Government to this point, and he is clearly not going to give up.
I will pass over my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), as he is not in his place. [Hon. Members: “He is!”] I beg your pardon; he has moved. Hon. Members have talked about defence spending, but he made the important point that it is how well, not how much that matters. Bearing in mind that the Public Accounts Committee report on the Ministry of Defence, published just before Christmas, described its system for delivering major equipment capabilities as “broken”, that may be a message that the Chancellor wants to hear and he may be wary of throwing good money after bad. The right hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) is not here so I will move on.
The right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) said that we are back in a cold war scenario. I am not sure that he is right; the circumstances are new but some of the old determination on deterrence will certainly be required.
The second hallmark of the debate was the profound gravity with which hon. Members spoke about Russia invading and killing people in that sovereign country. I am disappointed that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) is not here because he rightly said that Russia is a member of the UN Security Council and is tearing up 75 years of international law.
The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said that he was making a short speech but rightly warned us to prepare for a long conflict. He said that securing long-term peace will require resolve and strength. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) treated us to a history of European treaties, including Maastricht, that have taken for granted our geopolitical stability in Europe over recent years.
The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) was passionate and profoundly expert. He, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) all spoke about the protest and bravery of Marina Ovsyannikova on Russian state TV yesterday. That is a clear image that Putin is fighting not just in Ukraine now—this is his new front. Domestic doubts about the invasion, protesters on the streets and western sanctions are all putting pressure on him. This must become his costly failure. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) was right to remind us of, and to offer the solidarity of this House and Britain to, the brave anti-war protesters in Ukraine.
The third hallmark of the debate was great emotional power and passion. My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) said that the Ukrainians are fighting this war for all of us and we must do everything possible, short of NATO involvement. She is right. I pass over the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), who is not in his place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) rightly said that an attack on Ukraine is an attack on democracy, on peace, on freedom and on the rule of law. She pointed out what is at stake in this war. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) warned us never to allow Ukraine to go back to the horrors of the Soviet era of control, and he is right. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) reminded us that ordinary Russians are not responsible for this conflict. It is President Putin’s war and it must become President Putin’s failure.
The fourth hallmark of the debate was the strong solidarity that the House expressed with Ukrainians, led by the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who said that Ukrainians look to the west, not to the east. That is what they are fighting for: the right to determine their own future as a democratic sovereign nation. He had the whole House behind him when he said that. I pass over the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), who is not here.
The sense of solidarity with Ukrainians was particularly strong in several contributions about the Government’s response to refugees, which, honestly, has been shameful and shambolic. They used the Home Office’s existing systems as a starting point, but they are simply not suitable in a period of war with almost 3 million refugees in three weeks. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) rightly made the point that the system is not suited to the emergency. She said that the Government must be more like the British people with refugees.
I hope the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), gets her answers from the Minister about the support to local authorities that will accompany the DIY refugee scheme announced yesterday. Her hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) described the Government’s response on refugees as “pitiful”, although I thought my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) was more balanced and made a better case. She quite rightly said that in having a DIY asylum scheme, as announced yesterday, there is a risk that the Government are absolving themselves of the proper responsibility of the state for refugees.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) took the Government to task for failing to provide what is needed most—a simple sanctuary route. He said we can and must do better for Ukrainians, as did the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who was asking for answers and for a better system for her constituents.
It is clear that Putin has miscalculated not just on the strength of the Ukrainian resistance and the weakness of his own forces, but on the international resolve to isolate Russia and on the strength of western unity and NATO unity. Our Labour commitment to NATO is unshakeable. The Government therefore have our full support for reinforcing NATO nations on the alliance’s eastern border with Russia. The Labour leader and I were able last week to fly to Tallinn and Tapa in Estonia to reassure Estonia of the united UK determination to defend their security and to thank our British troops deployed there from the Royal Tank Regiment and the Royal Welsh battle group.
Let President Putin be in no doubt that our commitment to article 5 is absolute. Let him not mistake NATO’s restraint for any lack of resolve. When Defence Ministers go to NATO tomorrow for the NATO meeting, we want the UK Government to demonstrate a leadership role in NATO again; to further reinforce the eastern flank of NATO; to encourage the nations to take a decision on an initiating directive to SACEUR, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe; and to argue for new priorities in the NATO strategic concepts to be agreed in June, for closer co-ordination with the European Union, and for greater collaboration with the countries of the joint expeditionary force.
As we strengthen our defences abroad, we must also strengthen our defences at home. We need the Government to publish the national resilience strategy they promised a year ago, and to halt further cuts to the Army. We need the Government to reboot defence spending to respond to new threats that the UK and Europe face. Labour in government did exactly that, with a big boost to defence after the 9/11 terror attack on the twin towers. We introduced the largest sustained real-terms increase in spending for two decades. If the Government act to boost defence as Labour did after 9/11, the Government will again have our full support.
When he opened this debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), the shadow Foreign Secretary, said that three weeks ago the world changed. Putin’s invasion was a grave violation of international law and UN conventions. It was also the start of an assault on the fundamental aims of post-war Europe: peace, freedom, democracy and national sovereignty. We have taken peace and security for granted in Europe since the end of the cold war. We have failed to confront Russian aggression. We must now be ready to deal with the consequences of this Russian invasion for years to come.
James Cleverly
With the leave of the House, I would like to conclude this debate on behalf of my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, who was unfortunately detained in his Department at the opening of this debate. He has apologised to the Chair, and he has asked me to put on record his apologies to the House.
Earlier I outlined the Government’s main objective in this conflict, which is for President Putin to fail in Ukraine, and I set out the means we are employing to ensure that this is the case. With the addition of 360 people sanctioned today, the United Kingdom has now taken action against over 1,000 Russian individuals and entities. The new powers afforded to the Government under the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 have been put to use and will continue to be used over the coming weeks and months. Bank assets worth over £350 billion have been frozen. We have cut off key sectors of the Russian economy, including those essential to the Russian war machine, and we have rallied allies to remove Russia from the SWIFT banking system.
These sanctions are already biting. The Russian stock market has not opened since the start of the conflict, which I understand is the most prolonged closure of the Russian stock market since the Bolshevik revolution. The Kremlin is desperately trying to hold back capital flight, even from its sovereign wealth fund. Putin’s economy is now desperately exposed, and the elites around him feel the pain. They must tell him to stop the war, because the international consensus that now threatens their wealth will not be broken. This conflict stops when Putin decides it stops, and he should realise that it should stop now.
The international community has also moved to ostracise Russia from international sporting and cultural events. Russian and Belarusian athletes have been blocked from the Paralympics, and they are out of the World cup. Major western corporations are ceasing business in Russia, and the Bolshoi ballet will not be coming on its planned tour of the UK. Russian sports fans are left without international games to watch. The artists, athletes and performers blocked from performing overseas and the hundreds of people queuing in recent days for their last McDonald’s must be dismal signals to all Russians that Putin is damaging their country.
In his desperate attempts to control the news, Putin has inflicted on his own people the blocking of western social media platforms, and the highly connected and often influential Russian influencers must be devastated. As trivial as their tears may seem in the face of the suffering in Sumy or Kharkiv, their tears reflect the anger of a generation of young Russian people whom Putin does not understand and does not represent. They do not want the digital and cultural isolation from the west that he is now inflicting on them, and they should follow the brave example of Marina Ovsyannikova in challenging the repression of free speech and access to the world of online information. Putin is inflicting on this generation of millennial Russians a complete and total change of their way of life, and I have no doubt that they will want to push back.
Chris Bryant
I am full of praise for the Government for now being able to sanction 1,000 individuals, but will the Minister confirm two things? First, can he confirm that a large number of them can be sanctioned for only 56 days under our rules, because it depends on the Act that we passed yesterday? Secondly, can he confirm that we will proceed with many more sanctions? The tiny number of people around Putin may not be moved by all of this, but the people who have £750,000 tucked away here as their possible bolthole are terrified of what may happen, and we need to get to them as well.
James Cleverly
I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that we will continue applying sanctions to the Russians to continue the pressure on Vladimir Putin and to choke off the supply of money to his war machine.
The Government have announced nearly £400 million in both humanitarian and economic support to Ukraine. We are providing medical supplies, generators and other essentials. We are bringing Ukrainian children to the UK to continue their cancer treatment, and we have made the offer that the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine and other UK military medical facilities will be made available to injured Ukrainian service personnel. We will also welcome here Ukrainians fleeing from the conflict. We have put no cap on that number, and we have already seen that over 100,000 British families have offered to make their homes available to the refugees.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I appreciate that there might be difficulties with this, but would the Minister consider whether our offer should be open to injured Russian military personnel as well? If they are captured on the battlefield and they are injured, we should show them the humanity that we are obliged to under the Geneva conventions.
James Cleverly
I will listen to what my hon. Friend has said. As with all military conflict this is based on medical need, but I will take the point he has made.
I feel that a number of Labour Members sought to create a grievance where I do not think there should be one. It is important that people recognise that the £350 some hon. Members have mentioned will go to the householder, but more than £10,000 of support will be made available to local councils for those being homed in the UK. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) made an incredibly important point—I am glad it was recognised by those on the shadow Front Bench—about the risk of people traffickers taking advantage of those who have been displaced by this conflict. We know that bad people take advantage of good people in times of difficulty, and that is why it is so important that we remain observant and vigilant, and that we prevent those evil people from prospering through the hurt of others.
The shadow Secretary of State for Defence was assiduous in reflecting the comments made to the House today, and rather than repeat the names of the right hon. and hon. Members he mentioned, I wish to put on record my thanks for their contributions. We heard from Opposition Members a commitment to the territorial integrity of Ukraine, and a commitment to collective defence. It is great, once again, to see Her Majesty’s Opposition being the true heirs of Attlee. It is incredibly important that at times such as this, although we may have differences, which have been aired today, the message sent out to our friends and adversaries alike is that we stand united as a House, and we stand in solidarity with the Ukrainian people.
We recognise that Ukrainians do not want to be refugees. They want to get home and back to the country that they love and are defending with such passion. We are keen to help them do so, which is why we will continue to provide the military aid they need. At the international donor conference, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary two weeks ago, there was a commitment of 4,241 next-generation light anti-tank weapons—NLAWS—which have been delivered. Other countries will also make donations. Thousands of sets of body armour and helmets, and a huge volume of small arms ammunition, rations, and communications equipment have been flown forward and moved onwards into Ukraine.
The shadow Secretary of State asked specifically about the provision of Starstreak high velocity anti-aircraft missiles. Those are being delivered, but he will understand that we wish to keep the timing, location and nature of that discreet. I assure him that we will help the Ukrainians to defend themselves against attacks from the air. The donor community grows because of the intervention of the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary, and others.
Bob Stewart
May I press the Minister on MiG-29s, and trying to get them to Ukraine? They could be picked up by Ukrainian pilots and flown in.
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend is running ahead—he can clearly see the next page of my speech.
Through the work of the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and others, the donor community grows all the time, and a further donor conference will be convened by the Defence Secretary in the near future. We will push for more, just as the Prime Minister did with member states of the joint expeditionary force, a meeting of which he hosted this morning at Lancaster House. Countries that have not had appropriate weapons in their stockpiles have sent cash; others have provided transport planes to work alongside the RAF in making deliveries. All of that is co-ordinated thorough the fantastic work of the international donor co-ordination centre led by the UK’s 104 Theatre Sustainment Brigade, who are now established in Stuttgart alongside the US European Command.
Many colleagues on both sides of the House asked for more support for the Ukrainian armed forces and for more complex weapons to be made available. We speak regularly—every day—with our friends in Ukraine and are working day and night to deliver on the requests that they make of us. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) asked in particular, as others have done, about the delivery of MiG-29s from Poland and other western countries who operate those jets. The delivery of those jets to Ukraine is a matter for those donor countries, each of which will need to make its calculations about the risk of donating weapons, as we do when we donate ours. Whatever they decide to do, we will of course support them.
Many colleagues also focused on the work of our armed forces. Yes, I am biased, but we know, because the Ukrainians tell us, that both the equipment and training support that the UK armed forces have provided them over a number of years through Operation Orbital has been incredibly useful to them. We should all be proud of our armed forces personnel’s work in support of the Ukrainians. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary and others are all determined that the UK’s foreign and security policy reflects the threat that we face in the world today and that we have the opportunity to project UK influence. Despite the Opposition’s habitual narrative—I understand that Oppositions have to oppose—I assure the House that the UK is still a significant influencer on the world stage and a force for good in the world.
We are determined to support the Ukrainians. A number of right hon. and hon. Members spoke passionately—they were right to do so—about the bravery and resilience of the Ukrainians that we have seen, both in the military and civilians who have taken up arms in defence of their homeland. We are also witnessing incredible bravery from protestors in Russia. That brave resistance to Putin and the elites around him inspires us all. The UK and the world stand with Ukraine.
But for all the hubris in Putin’s planning, for all the incompetence in the execution and for all the lies told about the losses suffered, the Russian army remains a formidable foe. We must therefore recognise and, I am afraid, prepare ourselves for the potential of worse than what we have already seen. But the Ukrainian people must not give up hope. They are fighting heroically and holding back an invading armoured army.
Putin may feel that he has overwhelming power at his disposal, and he may feel that a decisive victory is still in his gift, but the Ukrainians are proving him wrong. He has already failed in his strategic objective. The international community has pulled together. The Ukrainians have pulled together and have fought like tigers. The international community and the Ukrainian people have seen him for what he is, and increasingly the Russian people are seeing it, too.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the situation in Ukraine.
Business without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 3 to 5 together.
Ordered,
Backbench Business
That Duncan Baker and David Johnston be discharged from the Backbench Business Committee and Chris Green and Jerome Mayhew be added.
Education
That Brendan Clarke-Smith and Christian Wakeford be discharged from the Education Committee and Caroline Ansell and Anna Firth be added.
Home Affairs
That James Daly and Laura Farris be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Lee Anderson and Matt Vickers be added.—(Sir Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Madam Deputy Speaker
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 6 to 8 together.
Ordered,
Justice
That James Daly be discharged from the Justice Committee and Matt Vickers be added.
Petitions
That Taiwo Owatemi be discharged from the Petitions Committee and Marsha De Cordova be added.
Public Accounts
That Mr Richard Holden and Gareth Bacon be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr Louie French and Angela Richardson be added. —(Sir Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Petitions
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
The loss of the 236 bus service between Glossop and Ashton has left people in Glossop, Hadfield and Gamesley without a direct bus route to Tameside Hospital or Ashton College. I fought hard to try to save this service and 750 local bus users have signed my petition to reinstate this vital transport link, which I am proud to present to Parliament today.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that, as a result of the loss of the 236 bus, Glossop has no connection and no direct bus route to Tameside Hospital and Ashton College.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to note this loss and, in light of the recent outcome of the Judicial Review into bus franchising in Greater Manchester, urge Derbyshire County Council and Transport for Greater Manchester to work together to restore the 236 bus service.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002718]
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
The petition is supported by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), who is in her place.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that Carnforth would be an ideal location for the new headquarters of Great British Railways; further that the creation of the headquarters would bring additional jobs to the community, as well as encourage new investment; further that Lancashire County Council should note the importance of this proposal; and further that an initial petition organised by Lancaster Civic Vision gained over 500 signatories from the whole community.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to note the nomination of Carnforth to house the new headquarters of Great British Railways.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002719]
Physical Activity and Health Outcomes
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I am very grateful to Mr Speaker for granting me this debate.
For many years, I have championed the issue of supporting as many people as possible to achieve a healthy weight, an important issue in health prevention which matters today more than it ever has. It is also so important to remember that even if achieving a healthy weight is a real challenge and our body mass index is not yet as we would want it, the more physical activity we can do the better. Tonight, I want to issue a call to arms on the related issue of being sufficiently physically active to help us all lead healthy lives.
I start by paying tribute to Peter Walker, a parliamentary correspondent who works in this building, for his outstanding book “The Miracle Pill”. It was published last year and it should be required reading for everyone working in health and social care, everyone who cares about the NHS, and leaders across central Government and local government, as well as in business.
Let us look at the health benefits of regular physical activity. If we could achieve those outcomes with a pill, it would indeed be the miracle pill. Regular physical activity reduces the risk of breast cancer by 20%, the risk of dementia, depression and colon cancer by 30%, the risk of cardiovascular disease by 35% and the risk of type 2 diabetes by up to 40%. Hip fractures, which are so often catastrophic in their consequences for the frail and elderly, are reduced by up to a whopping 68% by regular physical activity. Those are all NHS figures.
I am grateful for the good work of the Faculty of Sport and Exercise Medicine UK on its Moving Medicine programme, which is designed to promote a person-centred approach to physical activity in health, and its Active Hospitals programme, which focuses on delivering physical activity through secondary care. Both programmes have won awards from the Royal College of Physicians and have now been adopted in Australasia and the United States. Active Conversations is also an excellent training course to increase physical activity for all health and social care professionals, social prescribers and the fitness industry.
It is good to see that the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, a very important new part of the Department of Health and Social Care, has a number of important online resources on physical activity and health, including on the treatment of long-term conditions. As a leading academic in the area, Ralph Paffenbarger, said, “Anything that gets worse as you grow older gets better when you exercise.” As another public health expert put it, slightly more bluntly,
“being active throughout your life is about being able to get to the loo on time in your old age”.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am not someone who has to get to the toilet early, but I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate; I spoke to him beforehand.
I make a plug for children to take action early against physical and health conditions. In Northern Ireland, 20% of children are classed as overweight and 6% are classed as obese, and I understand that those figures are reflected on the mainland. The need to change our way of doing things is very clear. Targeted funding for children in schools, which has fallen by the wayside as a result of covid, must be re-established, as I think the hon. Gentleman will agree. The importance of daily mile walks must be promoted in every region of the UK. Start it early—and at a later stage, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will not have to run to the toilet.
Andrew Selous
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the daily mile. I thank him for championing it in Northern Ireland. It will absolutely make a difference; I hope he will encourage all schools in Northern Ireland to take part.
How are we doing as a nation in achieving the necessary levels of physical activity? The answer, I am afraid, is not very well at all. According to a briefing that I have received from the Royal College of General Practitioners, 34% of men and 42% of women in the UK are not active enough for good health, and physical inactivity is responsible for one in every six UK deaths—the same proportion as is caused by smoking. Some 27% of the population are classified as inactive, meaning that they do less than 30 minutes of moderate physical activity, such as walking, each week.
It is getting worse. By 2030, we are on track to be 35% less active than we were in 1960. Most shockingly of all, a third of children do less than half the recommended physical activity for their age. The findings of the 2015 NHS health survey for children are even worse: they show that fewer than a quarter of children reach the required minimum of one hour’s moderate to vigorous physical activity every day on average. It is worth pausing to consider what to do about that. The curriculum is very full and the Department for Education is reluctant to mandate physical activity, while the Department of Health and Social Care’s remit does not extend to ordering the school day. Do we need the Cabinet Office to start taking a serious cross-Government interest in the issue for children, and indeed throughout later life?
What will happen if we continue on current trends? Justin Varney, who was formerly the head of adult wellbeing for Public Health England and is now in charge of public health in Birmingham, says that
“the whole concept of an NHS and welfare state, in whatever form we have it, is completely unsustainable if a third or more of the population remain physically inactive.”
It is not as if we have only just realised the importance of sufficient physical activity to our health. Back in 1948, Dr Jerry Morris was appointed the first director of the Social Medicine Unit, a Government body tasked with examining the way in which health issues interacted with people’s circumstances. His major initial research involved looking into why the drivers of London’s double-decker buses had significantly higher rates of heart attacks than their conductor colleagues. His conclusion was that the only real difference between the groups, who were from identical backgrounds, was that the former spent their days sitting down, while the latter were constantly on their feet going up and down flights of stairs. The hard facts are that for many of us, the way in which we work and the way in which we travel are taking years off what should be our healthy life expectancy. This is a big issue, but it is not remotely getting the attention that it deserves.
What can we do about it? The answer is a very great deal, if we have the political will and really value our NHS rather than just paying lip service to it, and if we follow the academic research and learn from existing best practice around the world. Making active travel possible is the single biggest health intervention that the Government could make. Walking and cycling are the easiest ways to integrate physical activity into our daily lives. Two thirds of journeys in the UK are under 5 miles and could be cycled in half an hour by those who are capable, but only 2% are cycled. E-bikes, of course, help the elderly and those in less good health, and make cycling much more inclusive. Staggeringly, 1.5 billion journeys of less than a mile are made in cars every year, so there is an enormous potential to do better. Active travel can meet 23% of the moderate-to-vigorous physical activity needs on school days for primary-age children and 36% for secondary-age children. People who cycle to work take fewer days off sick than their car-driving colleagues, so cycling is good for the economy.
Those who are not so far tempted to consider a daily commute by bicycle should read a 2017 British Medical Journal article by Carlos Celis-Morales, which used UK Biobank data to follow 250,000 people over five years. It showed that people who commuted by bicycle had a 40% lower chance of dying during the study period. I am among those who want cycling to be for the many not the brave, and we need our roads to be safe, but the statistical reality is that for many of us, it is far safer in health terms to be on a bicycle than in a car or on the sofa.
I support the work that the Department for Transport is doing to deliver the Prime Minister‘s vision in which half all journeys in towns and cities will be cycled or walked by 2030. This plan is backed by a £2 billion package of funding for active travel over five years under the inspirational leadership of Chris Boardman, the interim active travel commissioner for Active Travel England. The plan includes delivering safe routes for cycling and walking, cycle training for all children and adults who want it, and creating active travel social prescribing pilots. Employers who care about the wellbeing of their staff as well as the productivity of their businesses should be right behind that. I also look forward to the publication of the second four-year statutory cycling and walking investment strategy this spring to reflect the new policies in “Gear Change” and the multi-year funding settlement from the spending review.
This is not a pipe dream. It is happening now in Copenhagen, where 40% of commuting trips are made by bike, and I suspect that the rate is not much lower in Amsterdam. That did not happen by chance in either of those cities; it happened because of visionary leaders who cared about the wellbeing of their residents and pursued this policy over decades.
We can do more in the workplace as well. The Googleplex offices in Mountain View, California, are designed to encourage as much physical movement by staff as possible. That includes using nature between buildings as well as what happens in them. Most of the workspace is on the second storey, and all the meeting rooms and cafés, and every single toilet apart from the accessible ones, are on the ground level, connected by courtyard-style staircases.
So, what are UK businesses doing to build some mobility into what has become an excessively sedentary culture? Sitting still for too long is not good for us. I have come across one Defence Minister, one female general, one House of Commons Clerk and one Hansard recorder who conduct meetings standing up or who have a standing desk. It is the exception rather than the rule, and when I had the pleasure of discussing Peter Walker’s excellent book with him recently, I made sure we did so while walking around St James’s Park. I wonder whether the Department of Health and Social Care and the House of Commons Commission have looked at the BeUpstanding programme, a free world-leading project that improves the health and wellbeing of desk-based workers ? If not, why not?
I mentioned earlier that only between a quarter and a third of UK schoolchildren were undertaking the recommended amount of physical activity. I am a huge fan of the daily mile initiative, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred to, where children run or walk a mile at the start of each day. There are 7,289 schools in England and 1,191 in Scotland doing this, which is commendable. I would like to see that number grow substantially, including in Wales and Northern Ireland.
There is another country in Europe, however, that is doing even better. The global report card shows that of the 49 countries covered, Slovenia has the best results for activity levels in children, with more than 80% of those aged six to 19 meeting the one-hour-a-day threshold for activity. Frankly, that puts the United Kingdom to shame, notwithstanding the tremendous daily mile initiative. Again, this did not happen by chance. It was a conscious decision that equipped every school with two gyms and an outdoor play area as well as track and field facilities, and with five sports days per year and another week off for outdoor activities.
I wonder whether we fully use the fantastic expertise of our diplomatic network to really understand the best practice in public health around the world. If the Department of Health and Social Care is unaware of the level of commuting in Copenhagen or the outstanding physical activity achievements of Slovenian children, I would urge the Minister to speak to her colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to ensure that the relevant briefings are provided to her and her officials so that we can copy what is working well elsewhere.
It is really important to emphasise that even if we cannot do our 10,000 steps every day or, as adults, 150 minutes of moderate exercise or 75 minutes of intense exercise a week, every little helps. It is also really important to understand the difference between formal activity and incidental activity. Sport is brilliant and I want to see as many people as possible of both sexes and all ages participating, but the evidence suggests that the biggest gains will be from the minor adjustments we make in our everyday lives, such as using the stairs rather than the lift, getting off the bus one stop early, finding a parking space some way away from our office or meeting, or taking up a hobby we enjoy such as dancing. One of the best things that the Whips Office has ever done for me is to put me on the fifth floor of Portcullis House, giving me the opportunity to climb the 137 steps to my office on a regular basis throughout the day. I am not sure it was meant as a favour, but I am genuinely grateful.
I implore the whole of central and local government to wake up to the importance of this issue and all of us to play our part in keeping as active as possible in every way that is open to us. With good policies and the political will, we can make the right thing to do the easy and affordable thing to do for more and more people.
The Minister for Care and Mental Health (Gillian Keegan)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on bringing forward today’s debate on this important topic. In his excellent speech, he has outlined the many benefits of physical activity, and I am grateful for his challenge on what more the Government need to do to address the critical health issues of inactivity, poor diet and obesity. I would like to put on record my thanks to all those who work in our local authorities, in the NHS, in our schools, in voluntary and community organisations and in the fitness and leisure sector for their efforts in supporting people of all ages and abilities to stay active, particularly during the pandemic, which as we know, was very challenging.
As my hon. Friend so eloquently outlined, physical activity can contribute to reducing the risk of many chronic health diseases, including some cancers, heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Being physically active can also help to improve our mental health and wellbeing and help to keep people, friends and communities connected. Before the pandemic there were disparities in physical activity levels, but we were seeing some improvements. Those gains have diminished. The people most impacted by the pandemic were those we most need to support, including older adults, those in more deprived areas, those with a disability, those with long-term health conditions, those who were asked to shield and those from black, Asian and minority ethnic groups. We need to do more to achieve a level playing field and to create local places where everybody, no matter their age or circumstances, can find safe, accessible ways to be active every day and to stay fit and strong. Indeed, active travel is an important part of that.
I will shortly reflect on some of what the Government are doing to help, but first I stress that scientific evidence underpins what we and the NHS are doing to support and promote a more active nation, and advice from the UK chief medical officers is at the heart of our physical activity policies. The guidelines published in 2019 set out the types and levels of activity that are most likely to provide physical and mental health benefits for children, young people, adults, older adults, disabled adults, disabled children, disabled young people, and women during pregnancy and after birth.
As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are supporting primary schools with £320 million a year through the physical education and sport premium. We have also funded the school games network. This enables schools, through the school sport and activity action plan, to deliver a whole-school approach to physical activity, and many of us have seen the successful daily mile programme in our schools on our Friday constituency visits.
The plan, first published in 2019, is a joined-up approach by the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and it has provided the blueprint for cross-Government working on physical activity. This plan has enabled a range of non-competitive opportunities to engage the least active groups. To tackle gender disparities, the plan has enabled nearly 9,000 girls to take part in competitive sport.
Our work to promote physical activity does not stop at the school gates. Through the world-beating “Better Health” social-marketing campaign, we will continue to provide digital resources, such as the popular Couch to 5k and Active 10 applications, and to signpost people to local opportunities to get active. Our commitment to exploring new ways to help people get active is demonstrated through the health incentives pilot, which will take place in Wolverhampton with the support of the local authority, the NHS and the local community.
Birmingham will host the Commonwealth games in summer 2022. Such sporting events provide moments of inspiration, and the Government, Birmingham City Council and others are investing in providing local communities with opportunities to participate in sporting activities.
My hon. Friend rightly mentioned the contribution that an active, fitter nation could make to helping to protect the NHS and social care. The Department, through the work of the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities and in partnership with Sport England, has been working across the NHS to deliver the moving healthcare professionals programme. This work enables healthcare professionals to increase their awareness, knowledge and skills in promoting physical activity to patients, managing ill health and reducing inactivity.
The Government’s health promotion taskforce is bringing Departments together to develop actions that will deliver on our ambition to get the nation more active and provide equitable opportunities to those who will benefit most. The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that everybody can lead more active lives, and my hon. Friend mentioned the work of my colleagues in the Department for Transport and their vision for active travel. There is unequivocal evidence that physical activity has a role to play in enabling people to live healthier, longer lives. As the Minister responsible for dementia and the dementia strategy, I know how critical physical activity is to diseases that people might not imagine have a link to it. It really is the answer to almost any health question.
As I mentioned, we remain committed to introducing actions that will help current and future generations to access, participate in and enjoy all forms of activity, play and sport and, as my hon. Friend said, to integrate them into their daily life. We understand there is still a lot of work to do to create equal access for everybody and to address disparities. We will need the help of every single local authority, school and community and a truly collaborative cross-Government and NHS approach. I genuinely believe that, by working together, we can make a huge difference to the health of our nation.
Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate on such a vital issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Direct Payments to Farmers (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2022
Draft Agriculture (Financial Assistance) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
Draft Agriculture (Lump Sum Payment) (England) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Direct Payments to Farmers (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2022.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Agriculture (Financial Assistance) (Amendment) Regulations 2022 and the draft Agriculture (Lump Sum Payment) (England) Regulations 2022.
Victoria Prentis
As ever, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. It is also a great pleasure to be part of the Committee, and a particular honour to welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, with whom it is always a pleasure to serve.
A draft of the Direct Payments to Farmers (Reductions) (England) Regulations was laid before the House on 3 February. Although I do not directly benefit from agricultural support, I should say that I come from a farming family who very much benefit from agricultural support schemes. The matters in the statutory instruments are closely related. The instruments are being made under powers in the Agriculture Act 2020. They implement important aspects of our new agricultural policies, set out in the “Agricultural Transition Plan 2021 to 2024”, which was published in November 2020 and updated in June 2021.
The direct payment to farmers regulations apply progressive reductions to direct payments for the 2022 scheme year. The Government remain committed to phasing out direct payments—the basic payment scheme, as we used to call it—in England over the seven-year agricultural transition period. We are doing so because area-based payments obviously go, in the main, to larger landowners. Almost 50% of the total £3.7 billion budget goes to the largest landowners. Those payments artificially inflate land rents, stand in the way of new entrants to farming accessing land, and offer the taxpayer little environmental return.
To help farmers plan, we committed in 2018 to phasing out BPS direct payments. The specific reductions provided for in the statutory instrument were announced as far back as November 2020. As was the case last year, higher reductions will be applied to payment amounts in higher payment bands—that is, to people who own more land. Although direct payments are reducing, total funding to farmers is not reducing. We will make money from the reductions available for targeted schemes to increase farm productivity, improve the health and welfare of animals and deliver environmental gains.
In the coming year, much of the reallocated money will be used to meet the rising demand from farmers for the countryside stewardship scheme, which is our key environmental offer at the moment. My family’s farm also takes part in the scheme. We now have 52% of farmers enrolled in countryside stewardship, and the intention is very much that we farmers will transition automatically to the mid-tier of the new schemes.
Farmers today face significant challenges because of rapidly increasing input costs. The war in Ukraine has directly affected the price of food and fertiliser. I am very keen to target support at those who need it most. We will offer a new suite of opportunities to farmers, supply chains and researchers to enable them to collaborate on research and development, so that they can find practical solutions to the challenges and opportunities that farming faces.
The draft Agriculture (Financial Assistance) (Amendment) Regulations update a similar instrument approved on 23 March 2021. They put in place requirements relating to financial data publication, and to enforcement and monitoring, for four new financial assistance schemes that we established under the Agriculture Act 2020. The amending statutory instrument extends the range of financial assistance schemes covered by the 2021 regulations to ensure that any new financial assistance schemes launched in 2022, and thereafter, will be subject to the same checking, monitoring and enforcement requirements that applied to the original schemes that we launched last year.
As we have set out for several years, as part of our wider agricultural reforms, we want to support farmers who wish to leave the industry, as well as those who want to stay. Some farmers would like to retire or leave farming but have found it difficult to do so for financial reasons. That is why the lump sum payment regulations allow a scheme to be introduced in 2022 that provides lump sum payments to farmers in England who want to leave the sector. Some who wish to retire can find it very difficult to do so, and the lack of finance is the barrier to retiring with dignity. We surveyed farmers during the planning for the Agriculture Act 2020 and found that about 6% wanted to leave but felt unable to, with financial reasons obviously being the biggest obstacle. The scheme in the regulations provides those farmers with a way out. More than 1,000 farmers have so far requested a forecast statement, showing the lump sum amount that they could receive if eligible. Obviously, that does not mean that they will take that sum, but it is an indication that there is a group of farmers who will find the new scheme useful. The payments will be in place of any further direct payments to the recipient during the remainder of the agricultural transition. It is not new money, and will not have an impact on the funding of other schemes.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks. The direct payment instrument before the Committee is a consequence of the decision that was taken to incorporate into a new law in 2020 direct payments of the kind that my hon. Friend has described. It is uncontentious and this is the regulatory application of that change. She has spoken about farmers leaving the industry receiving direct payments. I do not imagine that she will be able to commit to it now, but will she think about direct payments to people entering the industry? It is very hard now for someone to become a farmer. The barriers to entry are very high—the price of land is prohibitive—but we need to get more people, young people in particular, drawn into agriculture and horticulture. Will my hon. Friend give that further consideration?
Victoria Prentis
As ever, my right hon. Friend makes a very valid point. I had a really useful meeting this morning with the National Farmers Union new entrants, who came to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. They were full of ideas and practical solutions to the problems faced globally and by their farming businesses. Yes, DEFRA has very ambitious plans for new entrants; we are working them up in conjunction with those new entrants. We are approaching the agricultural transition hand in hand with farmers. We have 4,000 farmers testing things for us and checking that the new schemes actually work.
The new entrants policies will be rolled out next year. The exit lump sum is partially designed to enable the retirement of older farmers, but it is also envisaged that it will free up land that we hope may be made available for new entrants. The new entrants at the Department today had many other ideas, as do other groups, about how we can support new entrants to the sector generally.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I am slightly in awe of the weight of experience on both sets of Benches, given the presence of the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, and of my right hon. Friend the Members for East Ham, and my hon. Friend for Wallasey. I will do my best.
The Committee will be relieved to hear that the Opposition do not intend to oppose the SIs, although it is a close call on the lump sum payment regulations. I will explain why in a moment. The draft Direct Payments to Farmers (Reductions) (England) Regulations are familiar ground, because we discussed an almost identically named SI almost a year ago. The Minister will be delighted to know that I have her speech from a year ago before me, so I can quote from it.
Daniel Zeichner
Absolutely. At the time, I predicted that we might be back here a year later, doing this again.
Daniel Zeichner
Who knows how many years we will be doing this for? That is probably for others to judge.
The matter is not particularly complicated, but there are some points from last year that I want to raise again. First, there is the question of why this is being done year by year, when the Government have laid out a clear plan well into the future. I just wonder whether the Government lack confidence in their future timetable. I must also ask again where the money is actually going. Last year, the Minister told us:
“All funding released from the reductions will be reinvested in new schemes in this Parliament.”—[Official Report, Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee, 18 March 2021; c. 3.]
I think she echoed that in her opening comments today. When and how will we be able to see whether that is actually happening? We are now some way through year one. When can we see figures on how much has been released and how much has gone into schemes so far? If there is gap, where might that money reside?
Of course, this year, the reductions are much more significant—20%, not 5%. That will be really painful for some people. What form will the promised impact assessments take? I will also get my customary gripes in early. The Minister referred to some of the pressures that we are seeing as a consequence of world events. Input prices are frankly eye-watering, and every cost is going up—feed, fertiliser, fuel and gas. The hon. Lady referred to that but did not really tell us whether there are any plans to offer direct assistance. Could she say a little bit more about that?
On the level of detail, the reference to direct payments in paragraph 7.2 of the explanatory memorandum was the source of a complaint from me last year. The Minister referenced the possible impacts in her speech today. Paragraph 7.2 states:
“Direct Payments are untargeted, can inflate land rent prices and can stand in the way of new entrants to the farming industry.”
All possibly true, but that is conjecture, because they also can provide stability and keep many people afloat. They may even have contributed to Cambridge United’s six-nil defeat of Sheffield Wednesday at the weekend— I do not know. There should not be conjecture in an explanatory memorandum; there should be clear statements of fact. I hope that paragraph 7.2 is deleted. In fact, that conjecture has been copied across to the explanatory memorandums accompanying a number of SIs.
The terms of the Agriculture (Financial Assistance) (Amendment) Regulations are slightly more intriguing. It seems to be tightening up some financial assistance schemes, and widening the investigatory powers so that they apply to employees or agents of an applicant or agreement holder. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what prompted those changes. Perhaps there were oversights in last year’s SI. She described it then as a “flexible and proportionate framework”. Well, perhaps it was too flexible. Have problems been encountered already? We should know.
How many problems have arisen with the four schemes that were launched in 2021? How many suspected offences are there? I am also slightly puzzled by paragraph 7.7 of the explanatory memorandum to the financial assistance SI, which says that the instrument brings DEFRA’s investigative powers
“closer to those…previously created under Common Agricultural Policy…rules”.
In that sense, the powers are not new; but the paragraph goes on to say that the SI gives DEFRA flexibility in a more proportionate way. So it is like the CAP, but not like it. Perhaps the Minister can explain that.
The meat of today’s debate relates to the lump sum payment regulations, the principle of which we discussed at length in Committee on the Agriculture Act almost two years ago. We will not revisit the principle today, although I must say that the amendment I moved in Committee remains relevant. We argued then that the scheme posed a range of risks, and I am afraid I see little in the detailed regulations to reassure us about that. I am grateful to organisations such as Sustain and the Land Workers Alliance for their briefing on this. They made points very similar to those we made two year ago, and which I repeat today, not least the point that encouraging farmers to exit does not automatically lead to new entrants coming through, much as we all hope that it will. They also fear, as do I, that the scheme is wide open to abuse. I am astonished that more safeguards are not in place. I would not be at all surprised if, in a few years’ time, we found that there had been significant problems with the scheme.
I need hardly remind the Minister about the difficulties that her Government have had with fraud. One of her colleagues memorably resigned from the Dispatch Box in exasperation at the failures. There was £4.3 billion written off; we do not want that added to. I am sure that the Minister will want to reassure me, and the wider public, that I am wrong on this, and I will listen with interest, but it is hard to see the necessary safeguards. Sustain warns that a landowner using the exit scheme could rent their land on a five-year farm business fixed tenancy and regain full control at the end of that time. Can the Minister confirm that? The definition of “connected person” in paragraph 7 of the regulations seems to suggest that the land could be simply gifted to a brother, sister or family member—indeed, anyone other than a spouse or civil partner—and get up to £100,000. Is that really correct? Two brothers farming adjacently—hardly uncommon—could basically do a swap. What is to stop it?
As I argued two years ago, the linkage to new entrants is tenuous. We do not yet have details of the new entrant support scheme. According to paragraph 4, applications have to be in by 30 September, which is just six months away. Does the Minister expect the scheme to be in place by then? As the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings asked, what will the link be? Does the Minister have any clue what the new scheme will look like? Will it take on any of the recommendations in David Fursdon’s 2013 “Future Of Farming Review Report”, which I am grateful to George Dunn of the Tenant Farmers Association for pointing me to? Getting new people into farming is complicated, and the report contained many excellent recommendations, which I hope have come up in some of the Minister’s discussions.
It is not just Sustain raising such concerns. The discussions of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in June last year are illuminating and bear rewatching. A series of expert witnesses suggested a range of potential problems, including the problem of how DEFRA could be sure that the right farmers were taking advantage of the scheme. That rather prompts the question: who would be the right people? Does the Minister have a view? Frankly, it depends on what one sees as the purpose of the scheme, which remains less than clear.
Presumably the Minister can give us a projection of how many people the Government expect to take up the scheme. At an early stage in the discussions, it was suggested that it would be so popular that it would be limited by the available funds, but I think many people are now less convinced that take-up will be that high. Is the scheme cash-limited? If so, what is the limit? How many are expected to take it up? How many new entrants are expected to benefit? I suspect that the Minister may not have all the answers, so perhaps she could write to me.
In the absence of explanations, the Minister will hear us express again the concerns that we have long raised, including concern that the real plan is to get rid of inconvenient family farms and either intensify, to the detriment of the environment, or rewild and import food produced to lower standards. That is the only rational conclusion that can be drawn when the Government persist in failing to set out a proper vision for farming. Perhaps when we get a response to Henry Dimbleby’s review, we will get a clearer idea. Will the Minister hint at when that will finally happen?
There are one or two other minor concerns and loopholes. Paragraph 7.4 of the explanatory memorandum to the lump sum payment regulations says that the Government wish to help
“those farmers who wish to leave the sector”,
but that is not what the regulations do. So far as I can see, there is nothing to stop someone taking the exit payment, using the money to rent or buy land elsewhere, and then applying either to the environmental land management scheme or for countryside stewardship—a rather attractive double-earner. The Minister is shaking her head, so perhaps she can explain how that will be avoided.
It is two years since we discussed these issues during the passage of the Agriculture Bill, and despite a public consultation exercise, the level of detail we are being given about how the schemes are supposed to work remains disappointing; there are many more questions than answers. The Opposition want a revitalised food and farming sector, in which new entrants are encouraged and helped, so that there is innovation and new vigour, and so that the enthusiasm that so many have for our countryside can help our food production systems to flourish. However, we have real doubts that the schemes will achieve those objectives. We will not vote against the regulations today, but I hope the warnings are noted.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mr Hollobone. I cannot say that I am an expert in all things agricultural or farming, but a few general questions occurred to me while perusing these statutory instruments, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
First, I do not think that DEFRA or this country was ever stunningly brilliant at administering the common agricultural policy scheme, so transitioning away from a stable scheme that everyone was familiar with to something different, albeit for good reasons, is bound to create the potential for confusion, worry, and maybe even administrative problems. This is quite a complex transition from a steady state to something that is evolving. It would be useful to know whether the Minister has the confidence to say that her officials and DEFRA can administer the system over its transition period, which, at seven years, is quite long.
Secondly, I understand the need for a transition period of this length, but during such a transition, the objective circumstances change. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge mentioned this when he discussed the unforeseen circumstances in which we find ourselves, in which volatile energy prices are impacting directly on farmers’ costs. At the same time, the cost of fertiliser and other inputs is rising, and the Government—this was preannounced and expected—are reducing direct payments significantly and putting in place a different scheme with different criteria.
Farmers face uncertain and volatile—but probably rising—costs at a time when the basic income that they are used to is transitioning. It will be difficult for farmers to deal with that volatility without some sort of reassurance from the Government, especially as the Government’s schemes are being tried out and may change. In fact, the Minister has effectively admitted that they are being shaped as the Government go along, which again creates a lot of moving parts, and more uncertainty and volatility. It also means that there may be a lot of unintended consequences. Does she have any words of reassurance about that? When all the cogs start going, we cannot always predict the output.
As a member of the Treasury Committee, which has just interviewed Lord Agnew about fraud in the coronavirus schemes, I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge about the potential for fraud in some of these schemes. Obviously, they are about giving farmers income. The schemes have new criteria, which are being applied in new circumstances. Will the Minister reassure us about the degree of detail in them, and particularly in the mechanism for enforcement and minimising the chances of fraud? If one looks at what has happened in the coronavirus schemes and what is happening with anti-fraud enforcement across the piece with this Government, it is very, very fragmented. The enforcement muscle is weak and unused, and consequently billions of pounds are being lost to criminal gangs, opportunistic fraudsters and, quite often, fraudsters who are far more sophisticated than opportunistic. If these statutory instruments and the changes to agricultural schemes are not properly drawn up or enforced, this is another area where that might happen. Will the Minister reassure me on those points?
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am not sure who chose me to serve on this Delegated Legislation Committee, but we do not often have the chance to discuss something in which we have a genuine interest. I represent a rural constituency, and it is a great pleasure to do so. The Minister has been fantastic in her engagement with my farmers, and she knows some of their concerns about many of the areas that have been discussed. I really appreciate her engagement.
I shall make a few short points. My very good friend, the Minister, has talked about the quantum staying the same with regard to what farmers will receive when moving from one system to another. Can she confirm that the amount that farmers receive overall will be the same? There is a worry that we are moving from a simple, stable system, as has been alluded to, to a much more complex system that must include lots of checks and balances, because we are looking at an outcome-based policy—people are paid for outcomes, rather than acreage. How much of that money will be absorbed by the administration and bureaucracy of the process? It is hugely important that farmers receive the right amount, and the amounts that they have been used to.
As has been said, the amount that farmers receive directly is reducing, and other schemes are supposed to compensate for that. I think that my hon. Friend has acknowledged that some of the pilot schemes are not particularly well explained, detailed or clear. A lot of farmers have seen a reduction in revenue—vital support—particularly hill farmers, and they have not seen a commensurate increase in revenue arising from other schemes that they might be in. As my hon. Friend knows, in the past the countryside stewardship scheme was hugely bureaucratic and often it felt like people gave more money to be involved in it than they received in compensation for running the scheme itself. I know that my farmers would very much like to see a delay in the proposed reduction and more development work on the pilots before we move to a system of reduced payments.
We all know that food security and energy security are really important. I am seeing an increasing amount of my productive farmland—the best and most versatile land—going under solar farm applications. That is equivalent to hundreds and hundreds of acres in what is a very productive part of the country. Our local authorities in their wisdom have declared climate emergencies, and they are using that as a way to get round any requirements to keep the best and most fertile land for farmland. They argue, “Actually, we have a climate emergency, and therefore that overrides the need to keep the best and most fertile land for growing food.” We have energy production imperatives and targets because of the race to net zero, and at the same time we have not got food production targets. Our self-sufficiency was 75% in 1985, but it is now 60%. If we had a target for self-sufficiency to grow to that higher amount, perhaps that would act as a check and balance against local authorities giving consent for solar farms.
Sir John Hayes
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. There was a debate in Westminster Hall about this last week, and the points he is making were amplified. The critical thing is that these two things are not unrelated. You can shorten the food chain, reduce the number of air miles and grow more of what we consume locally. Then one is both serving the objective of aiding the planet and making us more secure in food in these uncertain times. He is absolutely right that there is a need for an urgent review of Government policy, and a change in planning law, if necessary, to prevent monstrous solar parks from taking up valuable agricultural land.
Kevin Hollinrake
I was lucky enough to speak at the end of that debate, although I was able to be there only for the last few minutes of it. It is absolutely true. It seems perverse that we are putting solar farms on productive farmland and not putting solar panels on top of every commercial building, school, hospital and prison. There must be some reason why we are doing it that way, but it would make obvious sense to put panels in those locations rather than on farmland. It is a debate that we need to have. I have been to see the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who is very supportive about the need for more clarity.
We are moving away from acreage payments, as the rest of Europe has, for example, to a system that is based on public goods. That means that we are putting our farmers at a competitive disadvantage. That is the reality, because they have to do stuff to get that money. That means investment and the cost of capital. We must maintain that fair and level playing field through trade agreements and through the system of payments that we make. I fear, and I know that the Minister has some sympathy with this thought, that we are potentially putting our farmers at a disadvantage. That is something we need to be very careful about.
Victoria Prentis
I cannot comment on the abilities of Cambridge United—I stick to supporting Banbury United—but I am absolutely convinced that the basic payments scheme is fundamentally unjust at the moment. The top 10% of recipients receive half of the total budget, while the bottom 20% get 2%. That is not a system that I want to defend. We are applying the reductions to direct payments fairly, with higher reductions being applied to those receiving higher payments. About 80% of farmers will see a reduction of 20% this year.
I would like to reassure the hon. Member for Wallasey that the Rural Payments Agency, which traditionally many of us in the farming industry were possibly less than polite about, has now got a superb delivery record, and paid 98% of farmers immediately the payment was due last year. I am genuinely reassured, and I would be delighted to talk to her offline about that or any other aspect of future farming policy. I am genuinely reassured that farmers will be able to deliver these schemes as we roll them out. They are an integral part of our planning for the new schemes, and they are at all the meetings. The roll-out of the scheme is very much about the delivery—testing and checking that the money can reach the farmer on time. If it does not do that, it does not work, so we need to make sure that that happens.
I should also like to reassure Members that we have committed to maintaining the farming budget for the duration of this Parliament. The money freed up by these reductions will be repurposed, as I said, into our improved countryside stewardship scheme—still slightly more complicated, and I say this as a farmer who filled in the form shortly before Christmas, than I would hope, and very much more complicated than the application forms for the new schemes. That is very much part of our transition to the new schemes. The reductions will also fund the beginnings of the new environmental land management schemes and the many grant schemes that are on offer.
All moneys that are saved by those reductions will be invested in farming and farming businesses. I should like to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, to whom I often speak on these matters—he represents some crackingly good farmland, as well as many pig farmers, who are having a difficult time at the moment, and many poultry farmers, who have had a very difficult time with avian influenza this year—that the £3.7 billion budget will stay the same for the duration of this Parliament. That is very much an undertaking that the Government have given and to which his neighbour, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is committed.
Direct payments are not strongly correlated with food production levels. They parted company with headage payments about 15 years ago, and many of the sectors in which we have the greatest self-sufficiency are those that we have not traditionally subsidised very much or at all. We are close to 100% self-sufficient in poultry, eggs, carrots and swedes, and direct payments have never been part of the business model of many of these really successful sectors. Food security is important, and very much part of departmental planning, as we seek to roll out these new schemes. Indeed, one of the advantages of the productivity grants is that sectors that have not been supported by Government finance in the past will now be able to make real innovations as a result of the money that we can put in.
Many Members are particularly concerned about the impact of removing direct payments on small farms, but farm business profitability is not, in fact, closely dependent on farm size. Many smaller farmers are no more reliant on direct payments than larger farmers, and they will initially receive smaller reductions in their payments. The Government published an evidence paper that was updated in September 2019 and which set out the impacts of removing direct payments, including sector-by-sector analysis, location and type of land tenure. Detailed and updated impact assessments will be published later this month, and it is important that we continue to do that as we roll out this genuinely iterative policy.
The Agriculture (Financial Assistance) (Amendment) Regulations 2022 will ensure that our new financial assistance schemes are regulated in the right way and are subject to the same requirements as the schemes launched last year, but they are tailored to the schemes that we have launched since then, and that is where the differences arise. The measures have grown as the schemes have grown. I was interested in the point made by the hon. Member for Wallasey about fraud. We are absolutely committed to making sure that these schemes are not subjected to fraud. We are a small industry—85,000 farmers —and our land is well mapped. A great deal is known in the Department and in Government generally about the businesses that we support, but it is important that we remain vigilant.
Daniel Zeichner
I hear what the Minister says, but I do not see anything in the regulations to prevent some of those things from happening. In some ways, it will not be fraud; it will just be people using the system.
Victoria Prentis
If the hon. Gentleman could hold on for just a moment, I will come to the specific points that he made about the lump sum exit scheme.
The regulations made good on our commitment to offer farmers a lump sum exit scheme this year. We believe that the calculation of the lump sum payment amount is fair. For most farmers, the lump sum will be approximately equivalent to the amount that they might otherwise receive in direct payments for the years 2022—this year and next year—to 2027, as they are phased out over the remaining years of the planned transition.
The difference, which the hon. Member for Cambridge has perhaps not had fully explained to him before, is that if farmers leave farming, they will not be eligible to enter into new agreements for certain land management schemes. The sustainable farming incentive, agricultural options in countryside stewardship, and agricultural options in local nature recovery will not be open to them. The lump sum is very much aimed at those leaving farming, and will require a bespoke agreement—we are in the process of creating bespoke quotes for farmers at the moment. It will not be appropriate or possible for them to take a lump sum and then enter new schemes or take options within schemes that are based primarily on owning agricultural land.
The lump sum exit scheme sits alongside extra support to help new entrants into the industry. As I said earlier, the new entrants schemes will be detailed and rolled out in 2023.
On the other points made by the hon. Member for Cambridge about Henry Dimbleby and the Government’s food White Paper, I have written to him, but the letter has obviously not reached him yet. I was very much hoping, as I think he knows, to publish the Government’s food strategy White Paper this week or last, but the decision has been taken not to do that at the moment because of the war in Ukraine. I reassure the hon. Gentleman, however, that the work that would have flowed from that White Paper will commence immediately, as if it had been published. I very much hope that global events will enable us to publish it as soon as we can.
To conclude, it is important that we continue with the agricultural transition as planned. Applying reductions to direct payments frees up money that we can use to pay farmers to encourage environmental protection and enhancement, public access to the countryside and the safeguarding of livestock and plants.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Direct Payments to Farmers (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2022.
Draft Agriculture (Financial Assistance) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Agriculture (Financial Assistance) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.—(Victoria Prentis.)
Draft Agriculture (Lump Sum Payment) (England) Regulations 2022
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Agriculture (Lump Sum Payment) (England) Regulations 2022.—(Victoria Prentis.)
Ministerial Corrections
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
The scheme will be open to all Ukrainian nationals and residents, and they will be able to live and work in the United Kingdom for up to three years.
[Official Report, 14 March 2022, Vol. 710, c. 619.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Minister for Intergovernmental Relations:
An error has been identified in my statement.
The correct information should have been:
Michael Gove
The scheme will be open to all Ukrainian nationals resident in Ukraine prior to 1 January 2022, and they will be able to live and work in the United Kingdom for up to three years.
Defence
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Quin
Today, I am delighted to announce that we are going one step further by publishing our refreshed national shipbuilding strategy. Drawing on the multi-talented skills of the Government, industry and academia, and backed up by more than £5 billion of Government investment over the next three years, the plan creates the framework for our future UK maritime success.
[Official Report, 10 March 2022, Vol. 710, c. 505.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Defence Procurement, the hon. Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin):
An error has been identified in my statement.
The correct information should have been:
Jeremy Quin
Today, I am delighted to announce that we are going one step further by publishing our refreshed national shipbuilding strategy. Drawing on the multi-talented skills of the Government, industry and academia, and backed up by more than £4 billion of Government investment over the next three years, the plan creates the framework for our future UK maritime success.
Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 15th March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 View all Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 March 2022 - (15 Mar 2022)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. I have a few preliminary announcements. If hon. Members with speaking notes could email them to hansardnotes@parliament.uk, that would be very helpful to Hansard. Similarly, officials in the Gallery should communicate with Ministers electronically. All electronic devices should be switched to silent mode. Unlike in Select Committees—although these proceedings are similar—tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Date Time Witness Tuesday 15 March Until no later than 10.25 am Protect & Connect; The Country, Land and Business Association; The National Farmers’ Union Tuesday 15 March Until no later than 11.25 am The IoT Security Foundation; The Internet of Secure Things Alliance; techUK Tuesday 15 March Until no later than 2.40 pm Professor Madeline Carr, University College London; Copper Horse Limited Tuesday 15 March Until no later than 3.40 pm Openreach; CityFibre; Speed Up Britain Tuesday 15 March Until no later than 4.20 pm BUUK Infrastructure; The Internet Service Providers’ Association Tuesday 15 March Until no later than 5.00 pm Which?; Refuge
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, and then a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication, and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence session. In view of the time available, I hope that we can deal with these matters formally. We discussed the programme motion last week at the Programming Sub-Committee.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 15 March) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 15 March;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 17 March;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 22 March;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 24 March;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 29 March;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table;
3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 66, the Schedule, Clauses 67 to 78, new Clauses, new Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill;
4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 29 March.—(Julia Lopez.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Julia Lopez.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room and circulated to members by email. I would usually call on the Minister at this stage to move the motion for the Committee to sit in private, but I do not think that the Front Benchers on either side want to move into a private session, so we will continue sitting in public and the proceedings are still being broadcast. Before we start hearing from the witnesses, do any hon. Members wish to make declarations of interest in connection with the Bill?
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I am a former worker in the cyber-security industry, and have worked for a couple of the witnesses giving evidence today. One is techUK; I have also worked for BT, which of course owns Openreach. I also draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I undertook some work in cyber-security for MHR between May and December last year.
The Chair
Thank you. The Clerks will note that declaration from Ruth Edwards; and Ruth, if you wish to refer to it later in the proceedings, do so.
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
This is slightly tangential, but better declared than risked. The Grundy family farm has a mobile phone mast, for which my father receives yearly payment.
The Chair
Thank you. The same applies.
Examination of Witnesses
Anna Turley, Dr Charles Trotman and Eleanor Griggs gave evidence.
Chair
I welcome the witnesses to the meeting, and thank you for your time. Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick to the timings in the programme motion to which the Committee has agreed, so this session will end at 10.25 am sharp, or earlier if we run out of questions. I ask the witnesses to introduce themselves briefly.
Anna Turley: My name is Anna Turley and I am chair of the Protect and Connect Campaign.
Eleanor Griggs: I am Eleanor Griggs, land management adviser for the National Farmers Union, representing about 47,000 farming members.
Dr Trotman: I am Charles Trotman, chief economist at the Country Land and Business Association. We represent 28,000 members across England and Wales. I am also chair of the rural connectivity forum, which represents rural organisations to industry and Government.
The Chair
Thank you. Let us move first to the Minister to ask any questions that she may have.
The Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)
Q
Anna Turley: Thank you for meeting us to discuss our campaign. I should have mentioned at the outset that we represent all the site owners around the country who host telecoms communication infrastructure on their land.
I am afraid that we are not seeing the same tailing off of difficult cases; a number of cases are continuing to come to us where leases are up for renewal, yet telecoms companies are behaving in quite an appalling way. We have cases of rent reductions, often starting at 90% to 95%, and that is par for the course—it is not a small handful of extreme cases. In a large number of cases across the country telecoms companies are coming in often with very aggressive legal notices, which are quite intimidating and making people feel that they are being steamrollered by those large companies. People feel that they have no ability to participate in the legal process, and are obliged to take those cuts of 90% to 95%. If you are small community group, a church or a sports club, the difference between £4,000 and a couple of hundred is huge and has a great impact, especially when you believed that you had that income for the next 10 years. The impact on people has been huge and it has been pretty devastating since 2017.
Our frustration with the Bill is that it fails to address the root causes of that problem. The valuation issue is affecting people deeply, and the Bill will not deal with that. Those cases will continue to arise, and in fact the Bill will expand the number of people who will be affected by the 2017 code through the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and the Business Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. Between another 3,000 and 4,000 people in Ireland will be affected by the 2017 code changes, as well as thousands of others across the UK. Those cases will not diminish, nor will the huge drops in rent, and that is having a devastating effect on a lot of small landowners and property owners around the country.
Julia Lopez
Q
Anna Turley: I would say that we are dealing with in the region of a few thousand. I have a number of case studies from Members’ constituencies around the country. I am afraid that I do not have a total overall figure, but there are 33,000 site owners around the country who are affected by this. Thousands of affected people have come forward to us via social media and lobbied their MPs. I would be happy to write to the Committee with a full number, but as I said, it is in the thousands. This is not a small number of unique people; this is par for the course. Colleagues here will represent their members in such cases, too. They are not a small minority that we have cherry-picked; this is happening across the board.
The campaign was set up because there was no way for, say, a church in Scotland, a rugby club in Wales and a farmer in Surrey to come together to stand up for their rights as landlords, to talk about how this was affecting them, and to have their voice heard by Government. Legislation was continuing to be developed, through pressure from mobile operators, which have long-standing and strong connections with Government through their large lobbying organisations. The views of ordinary people about the impact of the legislation on them were not being heard.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Q
Anna Turley: Absolutely. Someone in Cambridgeshire wrote to us who has two masts on their farm:
“I have recently gained Planning Approval for 5 Houses on my land Immediately next to the mast positions. Not only do I appear unable to refuse to renew the Lease…their current offer is derisory at £750 per annum which is less than 10% of the current rent.”
Another, in Peterborough, said:
“It’s been two and a half years out of lease, they had agreed all the new terms of the lease, just about to sign off. Then all change and they pulled out, and offered £500 per year and not heard anything since. These tower operators make dodgy used car salesman seem like Saints.”
We have hundreds and hundreds of those. Churches, for example, are saying that they can no longer keep to their plans for the upkeep of their buildings. Sports clubs say that they will have to ask parents for more, so that their kids can play on the team. The impact of a rent cut from £4,000 to just £350 is devastating for small community groups and small businesses. They feel that nobody is standing up for them or listening. The impact of the new legislation will make that even worse.
Chris Elmore
Q
Anna Turley: The first recommendation would be to go back to the Law Commission proposals of 2013. The Law Commission suggested a market-based valuation approach that was closer to the previous approach but still delivered savings to the operators. That was widely accepted as a very positive way forward. If that were taken as the approach to valuation, it would deal with the root causes of the issues and the imbalance brought by the 2017 changes, which essentially gave all the power to the operators.
As for the Bill, a number of further changes will damage and affect smaller landlords. For example, the Bill brings in backdated payments. Again, that could have a devastating impact on a small community group that is being asked not only to accept huge cuts in their rent, but to backdate their bills. There are issues on the definition of “occupier”, which others will talk about. That could give operators the opportunity to change or modify agreements that were entered into in good faith and still have time to run. We would like more protections for landlords, to protect them against poor behaviour by operators. For example, alternative dispute resolution should be mandatory. There should be the power to impose fines on operators for bad behaviour. We would like a statutory code of practice for them as well.
We are also very concerned about changes to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. We do not believe the reforms to valuation should be extended to the new legislation. That could set a huge precedent for all kinds of things such as wind turbines, and could bring the 2017 changes into effect for thousands of people who previously were not covered.
We would also like to see an evidence base; that is one of the most important things. Five years after the changes were brought in, there has been no full impact assessment of the 2017 changes. There is no evidence base, but it was promised, during the passage of the Bill in 2017, that there would be a full assessment by 2022. We have not got a clear enough sense of the impact of those changes. Here we are again, bringing forward new legislation without having a proper evidence base for those 2017 changes.
Finally, we would also like more reporting requirements on the operators. We have no evidence that the money they have saved since 2017 has gone back into building new infrastructure. Everybody wants connectivity. All our members want better connectivity and wi-fi, but the reality is that money is not being invested back into the infrastructure. It is disappearing into the profits, and there is no onus on operators to show where that money is being saved and how it is being used. We would like there to be more reporting requirements on them.
The Chair
Before Chris Elmore asks another question, let me say to the other two witnesses, who are appearing virtually, that if at any stage they wish to add anything to what has been said, please indicate that to me, and I will call you.
Chris Elmore
Q
Dr Trotman: No, it does not. The Minister hit the nail on the head: you need balance in the market. What the 2017 changes did and what the part 2 changes will do in this Bill is further skew the marketplace. As Anna said, if the Government had taken forward the Law Commission’s recommendations back in 2013, we would not be in this situation. We would be moving far faster towards universal coverage, which we all want, and which, as the covid-19 pandemic proved beyond all reasonable doubt, we all need. The problem we have is that this element of distrust between site providers and operators has shifted clearly in favour of the operators. The market is not working as it needs to.
As far as the CLA and I am concerned, it is incumbent on the industry, rural organisations, telecom companies and trade associations to come together and work out the differences. It is the role of the Government to assist in that process. If we cannot get the balance right, effective deployments will be delayed. That delay will severely limit the ability of rural communities to increase social inclusion, and reduce the ability of rural businesses to pick up and recover from the pandemic, and from the cost of living crisis that we are likely to face in the next six to 12 months. We need to get the balance right, and we still have not got it right.
Chris Elmore
Q
Dr Trotman: No, it makes it worse. That is our concern. We have an opportunity here to bring the industry together. Unfortunately, what part 2 of the Bill does is pull the industry further apart. The sector and the market was beginning to settle down after the 2017 changes. The Government then decided that the changes were necessary. We do not know why—as Anna said, there has been no real assessment of the impact of the changes on the market place.
On the case numbers that the Minister was talking about, you have to bear in mind that a lot of these agreements are placed under non-disclosure agreements, so we do not have the information we need to assess how wide the problem is. Given all the cases we have, it is clearly a very serious problem. The key is for the industry to get the balance right and for the Government to assist.
Chris Elmore
Q
Dr Trotman: If the Government could give us the assurances and safeguards that we need that a voluntary system would work, I think that would be satisfactory. However, we have not seen that so far in our discussions with Government officials. If it is going to work as effectively as we want it to, it will have to be a mandatory mechanism.
If the ADR system works, it will reduce tensions in the market, because it means that site providers, for example, who are in dispute with the operators, would not be threatened with going before the courts. There would be an opportunity to negotiate under the premise of an arbitration process. However, we must ensure that that is available. That is where we need the safeguards. If we have those safeguards, and they are clear and consistent, then a voluntary system may be appropriate. However, from what we have seen so far, that will not be the case. We are not certain that the Government’s guarantees will work—that is the key point—so it has to be a mandatory system.
Chris Elmore
Q
Eleanor Griggs: My opinion is very similar to Charles’s, really. As it stands, I cannot see any option other than to make it mandatory to protect our members, who do not necessarily have that negotiating power, given the statutory powers that operators have, which could potentially be increased should the Bill, as introduced, go through.
Chris Elmore
Q
Eleanor Griggs: Yes, a lot of members have contacted us over the past few years, including quite a few recent cases. Obviously, those are under the 2017 changes. Many do focus on the rent, because that seems to be the trigger point, but then, when you look at the 90% decrease in rent, and then at the further terms that operators are trying to claim on renewals, those too are very unfavourable. They are not included within the code—they are not code powers—and have the impact of limiting what members can do across not just a small area contained within the deeds, but sometimes much larger areas, and sometimes an entire farm.
On the valuation itself—the reduction in rents—at a time when agriculture is seeing the loss of its EU subsidy payments under the common agricultural policy, it needs to be looking at alternative income streams. That, in itself, means that they will not be looking at mobile phone masts, as they did pre-2017, to get those income streams, but—this is leading on to the second part of the question—farmers will be looking to try to get income streams from every little piece of their land now. That will mean that there will not be any scope for something that does not pay very much money, but also does, or potentially could, include quite a lot of hassle through behaviours of operators and contractors when they are on land. It is not a very attractive prospect to have an operator on land now.
The Chair
Thank you. Will any Members wishing to ask questions please indicate that? Ruth Edwards.
Ruth Edwards
Q
Anna Turley: That is in total.
Ruth Edwards
Q
Anna Turley: Well, we know that a third of them have had reductions of around 90% or 95%; that is from our own survey approaches. Going back to the Minister’s first question, I could write to the Committee afterwards with the exact number. Thousands of people have written to us through social media and email, and have responded to our website. I do not have a total number for all those who have contacted us, but there are thousands of case studies across the country.
Ruth Edwards
You must have a rough idea. Is it something like 10% or 50%?
Anna Turley: I would say that probably about 4,000 people have reached out to us, but again, people have to be aware of our campaign. They have to have found us—come across us on social media. They have to have been engaged with us. It does not mean that there are not an awful lot of people sitting and suffering in silence. Part of the reason for setting up this campaign was that there were people who were just in despair and really struggling. Our campaign was set up to give them a voice and to give them access. I think this is really important. When the legislation was made previously, you were hearing only from mobile operators—those on the other side. There is no roll-out and no connectivity without people hosting a site on their lands. These people are fundamental to us hitting our targets, and we need to make sure their voices are heard in this campaign.
Ruth Edwards
Q
Anna Turley: I am not sure about that, but I know that internationally we compare very well. Our rents pre-2017 were not significantly higher than those in other countries, like Germany, Spain, Italy and others that are substantially ahead of us in the roll-out. I do not believe, and evidence does not suggest, that cutting these rents has actually increased our roll-out and our connectivity.
If you want to make the comparison with other utilities companies, the issue for all of those is that they are very tightly regulated industries, whereas there is very little regulation, and very little accountability and transparency, on the telecoms industries. If they are to become an essential utility—that may be the way we go, down the line—it is fundamental that the same kind of transparency, accountability and regulation is placed on them as is placed on utilities at the moment. That is not the case. We have no idea whether the savings that have been made through this have been reinvested in new infrastructure. There is no onus on these companies to do that. The Government are continuing to subsidise them with things like the shared rural network. It seems to be money after money towards these companies, without any indication of whether that money is actually being invested in helping us to achieve our connectivity outcomes.
Ruth Edwards
Q
Anna Turley: We are funded by an organisation called APW, which is a company that is a telecoms—sorry, a company that owns a land infrastructure itself. But as I say, we are supported by colleagues like the NFU, the CLA and others who back our campaign, and we represent all the site owners that have contacted us over this time to get their voices heard.
There are huge organisations, like Speed Up Britain and Mobile UK, that have very good connections with Government and are able to lobby and present their side of the argument. Until Protect and Connect was set up, there was no collective voice—no unified way in which site owners could speak to Government and tell their story. I think it is really important that we hear about this. I have examples here of constituents of your own who are saying, “We have telecoms masts. In view of the impact on our rent, I would certainly not have allowed the siting of masts on my property.” A number of people and organisations around the country would not have had this voice if we were not providing this campaign.
Ruth Edwards
So that’s the phone mast lease investment firm?
Anna Turley: Yes.
Ruth Edwards
What’s their interest in this?
Anna Turley: Obviously they are a site provider—
Ruth Edwards
So they would stand to gain substantially financially if we increased rent valuations.
Anna Turley: They have been losing substantially since 2017, so, yes, of course there is a financial interest. The point of the campaign is that they, by themselves, do not have a voice, and without their funding this campaign neither would all the other affected organisations—charities, community groups and others. If a representative of Speed Up Britain were here, you would recognise that there is a financial interest for mobile operators as well.
We have been very clear about the issue. Of course, the valuation is important and the money is important. I am a member of the campaign because bad policy has been developed over the past few years that has basically put all the power in the hands of a large number of mobile operators. Ordinary people around the country have been absolutely hammered by that and have not had the opportunity to express the impact on their lives and livelihoods. The campaign is a really important one to address that balance.
Ruth Edwards
Just to be clear, I do not think that there is anything wrong with APWireless lobbying for their interest; like you say, big telcos would as well. For clarity and transparency, however, I think it is important for people to note that Protect and Connect does not just represent small landowners and community groups; it also represents APWireless, which describes itself as one of the world’s leading mast lease investment firms, with thousands of leases in 21 countries across the world. I think it important that we have that on the record.
Anna Turley: Absolutely; no problem with that.
The Chair
I remind Members that we should confine ourselves to questions, not to straightforward dialogue.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Q
Anna Turley: Yes, I think that is the case. The fact that we are back here again shows that roll-out has not improved, nor has connectivity. We have had further subsidies through the shared rural network. More than 300 cases going through court have been bogged down, whereas prior to the 2017 legislation barely a handful of cases went to court. That has resulted in a huge amount of litigation and conflict between site owners and operators, which simply did not arise before. That is holding back our roll-out and affecting GDP. We are falling behind our international competitors. The changes in the 2017 code mean that there is now so little incentive for people to host sites on their land that we are at risk of further jeopardising our connectivity goals and achieving the outcomes that we all want.
Kevin Brennan
Q
Anna Turley: Going back to your point about the Bill, that was not what was envisaged at the time. The impact assessment predicted a reduction of around 40%. Even Speed Up Britain has said that the average reduction is around 67%. We would dispute that, but without the evidence it has been incredibly difficult to show that. We have a huge number of cases where the operators have come in at a 90% to 95% reduction. That is par for the course.
There is an incentive for the operators to take cases to court to try to push for the biggest cuts that they can, because they can apply that across the board. The frustration is that we see them come in with large rent reductions, often bullying small landowners, families, small charities and community groups. Those people are having to accept cuts of between 90% and 95% because they simply do not have the wherewithal to go through lengthy legal processes to combat the huge strong legal arms of those organisations. They are simply having to submit to that.
To go back to your point about outliers, we have also tried to get information about the impact on local authorities, because a huge number of local authorities host these sites, as well as a number of hospitals and other public buildings. Again, we are seeing 80% to 85% cuts to local authorities. Leeds City Council, for example, has taken a reduction of 85%. That is thousands of pounds lost to local authorities. At the same time as we have heard that dairy and other farmers are being encouraged to expand and diversify their income, or local community and charity groups are being told to be entrepreneurial and to diversify their income, local authorities have had huge cuts over the past decade, as we know, and they are trying to get their income wherever they can. It seems crazy for them, essentially, to be subsidising private companies that might be making £10 billion in profit last year. That is money taken away from our local authorities, small charities and community groups, and it is not a small handful of them; this is happening across the board.
Kevin Brennan
Q
Dr Trotman: First, we have to understand what the Government’s levelling-up agenda is to begin with. If we look at the levelling-up White Paper, out of 332 pages, there are only 39 references to “rural”, so maybe the Government’s objectives do not relate to rural areas. There needs to be a levelling up not just of north and south, but of rural areas compared with urban.
We have always said—I said this earlier—that, as far as we are concerned, our overall objective is universal coverage, because we can see the benefits. The very fact that I am Zooming into this meeting at the moment illustrates the benefits of effective and affordable broadband connections. We understand what the benefits are and we want to see faster deployment, but we also want to see both parties playing fair. This is where I said that the ADR mechanism is a workable solution, if we can get it right.
We have to look at the positives of this as well. There is one big positive in terms of rural wayleaves on fixed-line infrastructure. With the NFU, we secured from Openreach and Gigaclear—the two big infrastructure providers for fixed-line connectivity—a wayleave agreement. We have had that since 1 October 2018, and it works. If we can get it right for fixed-line rural wayleaves, what I do not quite understand is why we cannot get it right for fixed-line urban wayleaves—Anna’s point about local authorities is a good one—and in the mobile sector.
The major criticism that we have of the 2017 changes and of this Bill is the fact that we are talking about mobile infrastructure. We are also talking about the tactics being employed by mobile operators, which at the beginning of 2018 were not that conducive to effective negotiation. Basically, it was, “We’ll offer you a little carrot, but if you don’t agree, we will hit you over the head with a big stick.” Hopefully, we are getting away from that, but again, it underlines the point that we have a major market imbalance, which we have to get right if we want to get to the point of universal coverage.
The Chair
Before I bring in Rebecca Long Bailey, Eleanor Griggs, did you wish to say something?
Eleanor Griggs: I have just a couple of points. If statutory powers are given, there needs to be some sort of accountability on the part of operators, with, essentially, sanctions if those powers are abused or not used responsibly. That sort of thing needs to be considered, because at the moment there does not seem to be any comeuppance for the poor behaviour that my members have had to endure. Are we looking at consensual agreements that are reached by negotiation, or are we looking at consensual agreements that are reached because somebody cannot afford to defend their position or get slightly more favourable terms at tribunal? It is quite cost-prohibitive, certainly for the smaller individual landowners. I do not know about the monopoly landlords that the Bill’s impact assessment talks about quite a lot, but it is quite prohibitive for our smaller members.
I would also like to make the point that the NFU has an annual digital technology survey. The most recent figures—we have not quite had the 2021 figures in yet—are the 2020 figures. Going back to 2015, 29% of our members reported that their outdoor mobile signal was reliable. By 2017, that had risen to 42%. Obviously, that is a really big increase from 29% in 2015 to 42% in 2017. By 2020, it was still at 42%, so no advances have been made from the introduction of the code, essentially; that is quite important. Various other figures mirror that—smartphones with access to 4G and things like that. It just shows a stagnation from 2017 onwards. We just need to be careful that that does not continue or, in the worst case scenario, get any worse.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
Q
Anna Turley: That imbalance of power is absolutely something that we see throughout our case studies. If I may, Ms Long Bailey, there is someone in your constituency who has had a mast and a hub on their property for 25 years, and EE is now trying to force a rent reduction of around 86%. They said:
“On this basis we will not renew any lease”
and that they will do everything in their power
“to have the site removed, all land owners near us are aware of the situation and will not entertain the idea of situating on their property.”
That goes exactly to the heart of it; people just feel powerless. Many often cannot have the site removed even when they want to, because of the legislation. It is having the knock-on effect that people do not feel incentivised, or do not want to have the site on their land, not only because of the lack of income, but because of the disparity in power and the threatening legal pressure from those companies. It is a David and Goliath issue. People are having to take on huge companies with huge legal arms, and they just do not feel that they can compete with them. That is a real issue.
We have suggested a few ways in which the Bill could at least make the negotiations fairer by making the ADR mandatory so that operators are obliged to undertake that. There ought to be fines for poor behaviour. There ought to be more scrutiny and a code of practice to put an onus on better behaviour from the operators in the way they deal with site owners. We think that would go a long way to addressing that balance, as well as putting some reporting requirements on them.
Eleanor Griggs: Yes, I would say pretty much what Anna has said. For us, it is about looking at the Landlord and Tenant Act and how it will affect a lot of our members who are currently on landlord and tenant leases that are due to expire or perhaps already have. According to the figures from Mobile UK that were used in the impact assessment, there are just over 7,000 expired leases, with another 2,000 due to expire within one year. Bringing the Landlord and Tenant Act valuation for renewals in line with the code removes the transitional provisions that were intended to ease landlords into the new 2017 code. It means that the holders of the leases that are going to expire will have no time to prepare financially for the sudden income loss that they will face. We would look at removing that proposed amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Act.
We would also look at the interim rents side of things. As Anna has alluded to, there are potential issues that could mean that a small landowner would end up having to pay back rent to a large operator. We have a member in Mr Double’s constituency who had a lease that was due to expire that was achieving a rent of £3,500 a year. The renewal figure that he received was £17.50 a year. If the operator were to apply for an interim order and that order took a long time to come through, or the court took a long time to make that order, our member would still receive the £3,500 in the meantime. Then, if that took a year, he would have to pay back almost £3,500. Operators could use the proposed interim arrangements for indefinite periods of time, rather than looking to eventually get to either a court or tribunal-imposed agreement, or a consensual agreement. There are implications for landlords.
Rebecca Long Bailey
Thank you. Dr Trotman?
Dr Trotman: There are two things here. First, we understand that there is a lack of awareness as to what the code is, what it is meant to do, how it actually operates and the various tactics that are used, whether they be operators or site providers. Secondly, leading on from the lack of awareness, there is a lack of education. We are not just talking about on a wider scale—the general public, or site providers who may be in your constituency or anywhere across the UK; there is a lack of understanding and a lack of awareness within the industry itself. That is an important point.
One of the key fundamentals in resolving that issue is to have a code of practice that actually works, which we have from the 2017 revision of the code. At the moment, the code is doing absolutely nothing. Eleanor and I were part of a working group that drafted the initial form of the code of practice. What we have now—how it actually works in practice—is not worth the paper it is written on.
If we are going to have a code of practice and that is going to be a requirement of the revised code, let us make sure that that code of practice has some legal teeth. The only way it can have legal teeth, at the moment, is if it is appended as an annex to a code agreement. Very few site providers would understand that, and from what we have seen it is likely that very few agents and solicitors who deal with the code agreements understand that either.
Again, it is a case of getting the information out there, getting people educated as to what the code is and how it works and increasing the level of awareness. By doing that—again, going back to the point I made right at the beginning—you are creating a balance in the marketplace; you are having a more equitable system as we move forward. That then leads to faster deployment, and our ultimate objective of universal coverage. With what we are doing, if we have a deadline of 2025 or 2030, it is highly unlikely that those will be met, because there are too many problems and complexities within the system as it operates at the moment.
James Grundy
Q
Anna Turley: That is a really interesting question. We have not seen particular companies standing out any more than others. I think that they all have strong legal arms and come in with a very strong approach. However, what we have seen change, even since the 2017 code changes, is the development of tower companies, which I think is an interesting thing that has not really been taken into account when looking at the new changes.
These middlemen have been created, where tower companies will now rent the site from the landlord and use the code to cut the rent that they are paying, but will continue to charge high amounts of money to the telecoms companies—Vodafone, EE, Three, and others. The savings are not actually going back to those original companies, but somebody is making money in the middle. I think that is an important change in the market, partly, I think, because of the 2017 changes, which has not been properly explored.
Again, I think that we should be looking at that before we change this legislation, because the development of tower companies has distorted the market even further. It has not resulted in reinvestment in infrastructure, and is essentially creating middlemen who are profiting off the changes brought in to essentially accelerate 5G roll-out, and that money is not going back into the development of infrastructure.
James Grundy
Q
Anna Turley: Yes, that is when we started to see them emerge. They are a recent phenomenon.
James Grundy
Q
Anna Turley: I think that they are certainly playing a role in it. We have seen examples where, as I said, they have continued to charge, say Vodafone, £17,000 a year for a site, but then slashed the rent to the actual site owner to a few hundred pounds. That is absolutely a huge driving force, coming from profiteering, from those guys in the middle.
The Chair
If there are no more questions, I thank our three witnesses for a very informative session, and for giving us their time. Thank you very much.
Examination of Witnesses
John Moor, Dave Kleidermacher and Dan Patefield gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Dan Patefield: Good morning, everyone. I am Dan Patefield. I lead the cyber-security programme at techUK, which is the national trade association for the digital and technology sectors.
John Moor: Just before I introduce myself, let me say that it is an honour to be here. This represents a milestone moment for me, seven years in the making. Seven years ago, I set out on this journey to understand what IoT cyber-security was about and its challenges, so I am honoured to represent our membership and the executive steering board. I am John Moor, managing director of the IoT Security Foundation.
Dave Kleidermacher: Hi, everyone. My name is Dave Kleidermacher; hopefully you can hear me okay. I am the Google vice-president of engineering responsible for the security and privacy of the Android operating system, the Google Play app store, and “Made by Google” products including Pixel phones, Nest smart home products and Fitbit wearables. I am responsible for security and privacy, including the certification strategy for the company—how we assess and demonstrate compliance with security standards and privacy standards.
Julia Lopez
Q
John, you rather touched on the challenge: this is an area that is very dynamic. All of us are learning what the security risks are, and in Government—which often moves very slowly—it is a particular challenge to manage such a dynamic, changing picture. That is why in this legislation, we have set out some broad principles and basic requirements, but a lot of this has to be secondary legislation so we can keep up to speed with all the changes that are going to be happening to connected devices, and some of the risks that will come with that. I think it would be very helpful if you could set out for the benefit of the Committee how this picture has changed over the past few years, where you think things will be moving, the extent to which connected devices will be in our homes in future, and some of the security risks that will present.
John Moor: When I started out seven years ago, I was invited to take a look by the chairman of the organisation I was working for at the time, the National Microelectronics Institute. He was the CEO of an IoT company. I confess, I had not seen what the challenge was, so when he invited me—“John, go and take a look at IoT cyber-security”—I thought, “Why me? What’s the challenge? Isn’t this thing just a tiny part of a well-established body of knowledge about cyber-security, and why me?” My background is in electronic engineering—semiconductors.
As it turned out, when I went and had a look, it did not take me very long to realise, “My goodness, there is a real problem here.” I remember that at the time, a word I was using often was “egregious”. As effectively a student coming into it, trying to understand the space, I looked at the evolution of computing, broadly speaking. In one era, we had computers—desktops, laptops—and we connected them up, and the security around those was pretty dire at one point, but we started to get on top of that. It is not perfect now, but it is a lot better than it used to be, and we are all very familiar now with doing security updates. The next phase was mobile. Mobile was not quite as bad as the era of PCs. It was better—still a few problems, but much, much better. Then we got to this thing called IoT, and it took a complete reset. It was totally egregious.
I come from the world of embedded systems engineering, and one of the first events we did was a summit we ran at Bletchley Park in 2015, just to do a landscape piece—just to try to understand it from chips to systems, bringing in the regulator. We had a representative of what was then the Communications-Electronic Security Group, but is now the National Cyber Security Centre, to try to understand where the issues are. Part of the problem, I think, is what I learned there as an embedded systems guy. We had a pen tester there, and he said, “If a researcher comes knocking on your door, don’t turn him away.” I thought, “That is a really interesting thing. What is he talking about?” We were talking about vulnerability disclosure. For someone who comes from embedding air gap systems, security was not a thing. It does not take you long to realise that when you start connecting things up, suddenly you expand this thing called an attack surface. Attackers can come from many sources, not in proximity to the thing that you are working on. Suddenly, you have this massive attack surface.
The whole idea about IoT—internet of things—is about connecting things up, so by its very nature, you are vulnerable. These things can come at you from many angles. What does that mean? It means different things to different people. I tried to understand what this thing called security was about. I immersed myself in the security community and straight away I realised there were different groups. If people start talking to me about data, they are usually coming from a data security or information assurance-type background. If they talk to me about availability of systems—keeping systems up—they usually come from an operational technology. What I mean by that is the sort of things we find in industry—process and manufacturing.
Then we have this thing called IoT. One of our board members expressed it very well. He called it the “invasion of IoT”. What I took from that is that this technology is coming at us, ready or not. We established in those early days that we needed to have a response. The need is now. We could not wait for new standards and regulation, which is why we set up the IoT Security Foundation. Our centre of gravity is in best practice. It is saying, “Can we help manufacturers who do not yet see that the very fact that they are starting to connect things up poses a risk?” They did not, but now we are in a much better state. The body is developing.
I am delighted to be here to talk about this regulation. More needs to be done, without a doubt. A seminal moment for me was at the very first summit that I talked about. We had the chief technology officer of ARM, a chap called Mike Muller, give a talk in which he said, “The ugly truth is this: you will get hacked.” That was quite an epiphany for me, because coming from an engineering background, we engineer our systems to be virtually perfect, but what we are witnessing now is that security is a movable feast that evolves. Out in the wild, things change. New vulnerabilities are discovered. Yes, you can do all you can to engineer it up front, but guess what? Once it is in the wild, this thing called resilience is so important. What that means, especially in terms of this regulation, is the software updating part and especially the vulnerability disclosure. They are absolutely essential parts. That is part of what I have learned on the way.
I come to refer to IoT security as a “wicked challenge”. By that I mean that I do not think we will ever perfectly fix it, because it is always moving, but we can address it. We can mitigate the risks to a level that we are comfortable with and can accept. Again, another phrase I learned is, “Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good.” This is all good. This is progressive. This is what the world needs. Being part of the regulatory process to get here today, it became apparent that getting regulation right is so difficult. It is so easy to get it wrong, but going through the process, this is a regulation that we can wholeheartedly back. We think it is absolutely the right thing. It takes a step; it gets us on that security journey. We often talk about an on-ramp of security. It is about maturity. In terms of regulation, this is a fantastic first step, but more will come. The way it has been set up is exemplary. We can evolve it over time as we have to ratchet up the security for the benefit of consumers and society. I hope that little ramble gives you some idea about my journey and where I think we are at.
Julia Lopez
Q
Dave Kleidermacher: Let me start by saying I am so appreciative of the leadership role that the UK Government have taken to help us get to a better place for IoT security. I have been working closely with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport and NCSC for the past couple of years leading up to this. I have worked on how to measure security in digital technology for almost 20 years, and I believe that the lack of transparency in what the security ingredients are for digital technology has been one of the headwinds facing the entire digital world, even before the IoT was called the IoT. Of course, the IoT has made it much more urgent that we address this.
I agree that the minimum requirements we are talking about here are a really good starting point, but as we move forward and look at the secondary legislation, the really big challenge is how we scale this. The question about smaller developers is something that I am quite concerned about. At Google, we build our own first-party products but we also develop global-scale platforms. On Android, we have many manufacturers of devices across all different price points. We have millions of app developers across the world with whom we connect and work in all sorts of different environments.
One of the biggest challenges is how to monitor and measure these requirements, and how to make that work for small businesses in particular. That is the area I have personally been putting a lot of time into over the past couple of years. How do we build and establish an actual practical mechanism or scheme for measuring security at scale? There are a lot of details that go into that, but at the end of the day, we need a hub and spoke model. I can give you an example of a failure mode. The UK is, again, taking a leadership role, but many countries are looking at similar kinds of ideas and legislative concepts. The problem is that if every single country decides to create its own testing scheme for how to measure this, imagine how difficult it would be to have, say, a webcam or smart display, and then go to each country and provide documentation, provide the test results, explain how it works and go through a testing mechanism for every country.
As an example, for our Nest Wifi products, Google has had public commitments and transparency about our desire to have third-party independent security labs to test the products and assess compliance to these common-sense requirements. We have been doing that for a while now. We certify all of our products that way, but then a couple of countries at the leading edge of this started to ask us to certify again their schemes, and we did. That was a lot of work, to test to one scheme and certify and then do the same for another country with a different set of rules. The product did not change at all; it did not get any better because we were already certifying it. However, the work and the cost of doing that were significant. If we scale that to the full IoT, to all the countries which are interested in this—they all should be—then you can imagine how quickly it breaks down.
The hub and spoke model is looking at how we can work together to build a public-private partnership where there are non-government organisations, typically well-regarded international standards bodies, which take the great standards that we are developing, such as the ETSI EN 303 645 international specification on security requirements, which the UK has led in developing, and translate that into a practical conformance regime. An NGO can take that specification and the test specification—a sister specification, ETSI TS 103 701—and test a product once to have it certified for use in all of the different nations which adopt the same standard. That is the trick to this—the hard part that has to be solved as we move forward.
Dan Patefield: I think John and Dave have already mapped out the ever-growing risk landscape, so I will not reiterate that. From an industry perspective, there is clearly strong support for the ambitions of the Bill we have been discussing today, in implementing a minimum baseline that everyone should work to. Certainly, large swathes of industry are going beyond that, as Dave has outlined. I think I would join the other panellists in commending DCMS on the leadership that it has shown in developing the framework, not just with this legislation, but with the code of practice in 2018. I also commend it for playing a key role in developing the globally recognised standard in this space, EN 303 645—I always get that number wrong. The challenge that we have, and I am sure that we will come on to this, is that the code of practice—we supported its development and engaged industry in it—created an outline for best practice. However, it was never prescriptive; it was broadly focused. The practical challenge now is translating that into regulation that is workable for industry and consumers. I am sure we will move on to that, so I will leave it there.
Julia Lopez
Q
Dan Patefield: Going back to the code of practice, I am confident that across all 13 of those areas many companies have made good progress, and will continue to develop best practice that goes far beyond those requirements. I think it is a good approach to start with the three requirements that are included in the Bill; it is not the case that industry will be surprised by what comes out in secondary legislation. The practical challenge is translating the non-prescriptive code of practice into something that will be more prescriptive by definition.
There are a number of areas where I think there is more work to be done to smooth the path to compliance, if you like. We have got various elements. We have got the standard—that is not going to be a surprise. We know the security requirements—they are not a surprise. What we have not got is the boring bit—the technical specification that people in compliance teams within manufacturers are worried about. Quite often they have to then communicate that to their HQs—which are often in different parts of the world—and say, “We have got legal certainty that this is how it is going to work and this is how we achieve compliance”. That is the bit that we have not yet got.
Julia Lopez
Q
Dave Kleidermacher: It is a really important distinction, as we look at the so-called security ingredients in digital products. The analogy to food is a good one—but it also has its limits. What is good about it is that consumers deserve to have information at their disposal to be able to make better decisions about their health; in the case of food, that is their physical health, but in the case of digital technology it is their digital health. The concept that a consumer should easily be able to get a sense of the security status of a product is a very good idea. However, the main challenge is that food contents do not typically change—there can be a printed label that works okay. However, in the digital world, it could happen that you ship a product today and then there is a severe critical vulnerability, perhaps a hardware problem, that cannot effectively be mitigated or even patched. If that happens in the future, even a day after you have shipped it—this is a worst-case scenario—then if you try to put an attestation on the static label that the product is “secure” or meets these requirements, that attestation could be immediately incorrect. In fact, it could be dangerously misleading, and give consumers a false sense of security, so I believe that, while the ingredients label is essential, the user needs to have transparency. The consumer needs to have visibility here.
That label needs to be a live label. A simple example would be a QR code on packaging, although I am not sure how much consumers really go back to their packaging. We should also stress in-product experience wherever that is practical. It will not be practical in the case of every electronic product, but there is typically an app to manage many of our consumer IoT products. The app can provide an experience where the consumer can get the real-time, current status. That status can be as simple as a link that takes you to the certification page. As I mentioned earlier, we can have NGOs that establish the conformance programmes that we need to help to measure the security. It could just take you to the certification page to see the real-time status. If a product is deemed unsafe for use, it will become decertified, and the user will then know it.
Chris Elmore
Q
Dan Patefield: There are two points on the timescales. There is the point at which the grace period will begin. For industry, we strongly think that that should be when the regulatory framework is confirmed and we know who the regulator is. That is the point at which that countdown should start. There are different views in industry on how long an appropriate grace period would be. Obviously, DCMS has confirmed that it will be no less than 12 months. Once we see that technical specification, a lot of parts of industry will have interpreted the code of practice in such a way that complies, so that will not be a problem for them, but some might have an interpretation that the compliance framework rules out—for example, around passwords. They might have to go back, certainly for security requirement 1, and make a hardware change. For a lot of these products, the supply chains are enormously long. Take a projector coming over from Malaysia. That will be 15 weeks in transit, and eight weeks getting through the broader supply chain in the UK through distributors and re-sellers. That already reduces the 12 months to seven months for manufacture and design. That is the difficulty that some manufacturers might face.
To the obsolescence point, there are two points again. In terms of when this comes in, we have to communicate it to consumers in such a way that it does not cause them to think that any devices that they currently have are obsolete in any way. That is a communication piece. It is about DCMS and the Government broadening that out, and helping consumers to understand what the legislation is for. More broadly, I am sure that we will come to the timescales for security updates but we do not want that to turn into some kind of perceived sell-by date. That is the minimum we will give you security requirements for, but the device is not useless after two or three years. Both those elements might lead to an increase in electronic waste and the kind of things that we want to avoid in a practical framework.
The Chair
Do either of the other two witnesses wish to comment?
Dave Kleidermacher: I would like to make a quick comment. Especially as we look forward in time, beyond the minimum requirements to the larger set that are codified into the ETSI EN 303 645, and extended requirements even beyond that, in different vertical markets there will be a desire to have additional requirements. For example, on the Android side, a Google-certified Android device already meets baseline requirements, so we are working with NGOs on how to define higher levels. For example, the strength of a biometric is really important on a smartphone, and that is not currently covered by the baseline requirements.
As we go forward, there will be an increasing set of requirements, and there is a way to balance that challenge. You will always hear of some manufacturers, including smaller ones, that have more difficulty meeting a certain requirement in a certain timeframe, and one way to help balance that is by focusing more on transparency about whether the requirement is met, versus requiring that all those requirements be met. I like to say that transparency is the tide that raises all boats. That is the key.
To go back to our analogy with food, it is not that on a label it says that you cannot have more than 50 grams of something; it is that you can compare the number of grams of carbohydrates and other ingredients between products. If you look at EN 303 645 and all its provisions—there are many—you could ask manufacturers simply to attest as to whether those are met. Yes, I still believe that there are minimum requirements that are critical, but in as much as we run into some difficulties on timeframes, you could just ask them to state whether they meet those requirements. That transparency will still be really valuable for consumers. Again, the NGOs that are setting up those conformance schemes can take the attestations of yes or no across the requirements and translate that into a health score, if you will, to help consumers make better decisions.
The Chair
Thank you. John, did you wish to add anything?
John Moor: Yes, I have a few points to make. First and foremost, most of my comments are about the here and now: what we are looking at, what is in front of us and the three requirements that are coming. Our assumption and that of our members is that, as we add to that, there will be an equally robust and rigorous process to determine what might follow. That is essential.
The labelling question is really interesting, along with certifications and attestations. All we can say about certification is, under these conditions, on this day, in these tests, those conditions were satisfied. I have heard the discussion about food labelling schemes come up time and time again as a “We ought to do something like that”, but in our view that is not really practical.
One of the things that I had to get my head round when I came into this space was some people talking to me, saying, “Safety and security are the same, aren’t they, John?” I had never had to get my head around that in the past, but I thought about it for about an hour, and I concluded, “Actually, they are not the same.” They are not the same because safety is much more determinable. You can define the situation, the operating environment, the characteristics, the materials, etc., and you can figure out, “This is safe under these conditions.” The difference in security is that it is dynamic—there is a changing environment, there is a human adversary at the other end. We might consider something to be safe today, as David said, but that changes over time.
Where do we place our trust? Do we place it in the product? I do not know that we do. Do we want to be looking up thousands of products to see what the certificates are? Where we really place our trust is in the companies that provide those products. It is interesting that, of the three provisions that we are talking about, only one is really related specifically to the product, and that is passwords. The other two are really about the processes that are involved in the providers of the technology—vulnerability disclosure and keeping the software updated.
I do think that certification is useful, but it is not a panacea; it only goes so far. What we are really looking for is something that we would term “continuous assurance”. How do you do continuous assurance? That is the question for the industry to answer going forward, but some of the mechanisms that we have done in the past do not map well into a future world that is changing rapidly.
That is on the labelling front. It should be as simple as possible for consumers and for the producers of the technology. There is a discussion about whether we need another label. Certainly, many of our members favour integrating this into something that is already known. For example, could it become part of a CE labelling scheme, so that we add the security elements too? Those processes are well known.
Some of the discussions among our members about keeping software updated come down to considering what is a reasonable time to keep software updated. If you make it too short, that process is almost meaningless, and means that consumers probably will not buy a product if the update is, let’s say, after only six months. If that update is too long, the company is carrying a financial legacy burden. What is the right point? I think we will find that out. Is it three years, five years, one year? We do not quite know yet. My own view is that it should be a length of time that is beyond the life cycle of the product. In that regard, it is variable and I do not know how that would quite be implemented, but that is what we have in front of us. For the here and now, this is what we are talking about; as for the future, we are assuming the rigorous.
In my view, security is an awful lot like quality. As we go into the digital world, we will see profound changes not only in the way that we use products, but how they are produced. We already know that: among our membership whole engineering teams have been reconstructed. The selling of physical products must be reviewed too, because are we buying a physical product? Often we are not, often we are buying a service. Do we actually own it? No, we don’t.
Those are things that we will be working out as we go forward. We must understand those limitations as we do that, because we do not want to be taking the past into the future when the future looks quite a lot different from the past.
Chris Elmore
Q
Dan Patefield: I will lead on that question. techUK would be happy to give more thoughts on that in a written submission, but it is not an area I focus on. Internally, we split the Bill; I lead on the cyber-security element and another colleague leads on telecoms infrastructure. I am happy to get that question answered in a written submission.
The Chair
If there are no other questions from Committee members, I thank our witnesses for their time and contributions. I am sure that when Committee members come to consider the Bill in detail they will find those comments very helpful. Thank you.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Steve Double.)
Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 15th March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 View all Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 March 2022 - (15 Mar 2022)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. We will start this afternoon’s session with oral evidence from Professor Madeline Carr, professor of global politics and cyber-security, and David Rogers MBE, the chief executive officer of Copper Horse and an Internet of Things Security Foundation board member. We have until 2.40 pm for this session. May I ask the witnesses to introduce themselves for the record, please?
Professor Carr: Good afternoon. Thank you for having me. I am a professor of global politics and cyber-security at University College London in the computer science department, though I am actually an international relations academic, so I blend those two. I am also the director of the Research Institute in Sociotechnical Cyber Security, and I am the deputy director of REPHRAIN, the National Research Centre on Privacy, Harm Reduction and Adversarial Influence Online, which looks specifically at protecting citizens online. It is a big consortium.
David Rogers: I was the original author of the code of practice and the lead editor during the process that is the basis for the legislation. I also chair the fraud and security group at the global mobile industry association, the GSMA. As you mentioned, I am also on the board of the IoT Security Foundation.
The Chair
Thank you very much. Members of the Committee will ask you questions in turn, but we will start with the Minister.
The Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)
Q
Professor Carr: That is a very good question. In terms of international alignment, aligning these kinds of laws across jurisdictions is a challenge. I want to say from the outset that regulating emerging technology is understood to be a deeply problematic and challenging area. It is something that the UK in many ways has led on. A lot of thought leadership has come out of the UK on this. As David said, the work that has led into the Bill has been going on for many years in the UK, and has been funded by the UK Government through universities and industry. A tremendous amount of background work has gone on. There is the PETRAS—privacy, ethics, trust, reliability, accessibility and security—consortium, which was originally the cyber-security of the IoT consortium. We have worked on that for many years with David and others. The UK really has led on this. When we look at what is happening here and now, you would have to say that this is a country that is able to confront those kinds of difficult challenges and think about ways through them. No one is saying that it is easy; it will not be, but this is a very good start.
When it comes to looking at international alignment and the impact on industry, and particularly the manufacturers of these devices, there is already a lot of alignment. I have been doing some work through the World Economic Forum, where I am chair of the Council on the Connected World. On 15 February, we launched a global statement that spoke to the three initiatives that are being considered here, and an additional two in terms of IoT consumer devices. That statement has been endorsed by more than 110 organisations around the world, including Microsoft, Google, Qualcomm, DCMS, RISCS—my institute—and indeed David’s organisation. There is a tremendous amount of international support for these initiatives and more. A lot of them are big industries, so I do not think there is necessarily a disconnect between governance of emerging technology and what is helpful for industry actors; I think there is actually a lot of alignment.
David Rogers: I will just point to some specifics. There is work ongoing in India, Australia, Singapore, Turkey, and the US, and many of those countries—and many I have not listed—base their work on what was originally the UK code of practice. The UK’s code of practice was taken to ETSI, the European telecoms standards body, and was made into a European norm. That really, I think, has given the confidence for other countries to be able to adopt that as a scrutinised and good piece of work.
That is obviously not in isolation. ETSI is an industry-led organisation, and a lot of the work that has gone into that in advance, including through DCMS and NCSC, has been about looking at industry-based best practice. Organisations such as the GSMA worked on this in 2014, and, prior to that, in the smartphone world, have been building in hardware security and other measures, which have hardened connected consumer devices, so that work is certainly not in isolation. We are really standing on the shoulders of giants here, because a lot of the work is done; it is in endorsing good practice, and I think that is what the other countries are seeing, and they really have seen leadership from the UK in this space.
Julia Lopez
Q
David Rogers: I will address that. The beauty of the IoT is that there are all these fantastic things being developed. When we started to look at what we could do, and a code of practice, we wanted to ensure that we did not constrain innovation by mandating specific technical measures that might prevent some fantastic product being created. That is why we took quite a high-level outcome-based approach.
That also meant that it was measurable, even by consumers. If you look at the top three guidelines of the code of practice that have made it into the draft legislation, a consumer can look at those things, which I would call “insecurity canaries”. If you see that a manufacturer does not have a vulnerability disclosure policy—so hackers and security researchers, for example, cannot report things to them—that is a big red flag, and I would not be buying that product. It is the same if the product does not have software update support, and so on.
We took a proportionate approach to the code of practice, and I think that that also led to the industry endorsement of it. This morning, I heard the techUK gentleman saying it is not specific enough; well, actually, the ETSI EN 303 645 is quite specific, and the compliance specification that goes with it is even more specific. For some bad practices, I do not think that we could be more specific than saying “Don’t have default universal passwords”. We want to get rid of “admin” and “admin”. That is a ridiculous situation, in some parts of the market, that is unacceptable, and we must eliminate it from the market.
Julia Lopez
Q
Professor Carr: Just to say that we cannot anticipate all of the new devices that will come on to the market, of course. I think what David is saying is that it is necessary to have that kind of flexibility to adapt and accommodate those, as they come on to the market. However, it is really long overdue that we do something about this.
There are two types of security in these devices that we understand at this point, which need to be taken into account. The first is the security of the data that flows through them. Although they are very different devices, that is, in many ways, a common problem in securing data—particularly, of course, personally identifiable data. The second issue arising from IoT devices is that many of them have an impact in the physical world. That then begins to blur cyber-security with safety, and we have very different ways of approaching cyber-security and safety. What we tend to do with safety is test things, over and over again, until they break; then we know how they need to be built or constructed. That kind of homogeneity in an approach to design is very bad for cyber-security, because that is what gives us vulnerabilities across the whole landscape. Those are the kinds of issues that we need to grapple with. The devices themselves will continue to emerge and evolve, but the problems that we are grappling with now are common across devices, in a way. Legislation such as this will go some way towards addressing those problems.
Julia Lopez
Q
David Rogers: Yes, originally there was a “secure by design” committee set up with various companies—Madeline and I were on that committee. There were various discussions about the best way forward. I remember one suggestion being that all we needed to do was to educate consumers. After I banged my head on the table quite a lot, I think that in the end we realised that it should not be on consumers. They are not the ones who are creating the insecurity in the product and they are not in a position to do anything about it either—they are mainly victims. It was recognised that a lot of those issues have been in products for many years; I go back to the default password issue, but there are many issues around things such as lack of support for software updates.
I drew up the original code of practice and worked closely with National Cyber Security Centre and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. I also worked with academia and the security research community, who are hackers from around the world who have been campaigning for those issues to be dealt with for years, because they are seeing it directly in their work. We spent a lot of time getting it right; we worked at the Information Commissioner’s Office on some of the elements related to GDPR.
A voluntary code was published in 2018. However, manufacturers were put on notice at that point. By 2018, it was made public that this was the expectation; we expected the industry to improve. Some quarters were probably already compliant; you heard from Dave Kleidermacher this morning, who led the way in security improvements on mobile devices—from their perspective a lot of the stuff in the 13 requirements was already done. However, many parts of the industry have done nothing. It seems to me that they are quite happy to sit back and do nothing. That is why I think this work is necessary; there is a need for the big stick of enforcement, to be honest with you. They have been given plenty of chances, and not just since 2018—it is since the 1990s. It seems acceptable to them to carry on doing the same things that they have always done, such as buying in the really cheap software that is completely open and has old protocols and legacy issues that should have gone years ago. I am entirely supportive of taking action now— they have been given enough time. They should not wait for the 12 months—or whatever it is—for certain things to become mandatory. They should be doing this because it is the right thing to do for their customers.
My company carried out some research for the IoT Security Foundation on vulnerability disclosure. Again, that is something that is very visible; you can go to the website and see whether that company is open to security researchers and hackers reporting security issues to them. There is then a process that has been ISO-defined since 2014; it is dealt with and then the issue is made public once it is fixed so that consumers are secure. We discovered that about one in five of the companies that we surveyed—there were about 330 companies from around the world, representing thousands of products—was actually providing that to security researchers. That means that four in five IoT manufacturers did not have any way for security researchers to contact them. That is totally unacceptable, so we do need to take action. The companies have been given enough chances.
Julia Lopez
Q
Professor Carr: I think the element that will impact consumer decision making the most will be the length of time for which the product will be supported. I remember having the conversation in a room in DCMS all those years ago about how we could possibly be expected to spend £1,000 on a phone that will not work in 18 months, that the company knows will not work in 18 months—it will not be supported—and to not have access to that knowledge. This is not just about putting labels on things; it is about the fact that we could not find out even as an informed consumer. I think the length of time for which the device is supported will have a major impact on consumer decision making and probably more than the other two things, because a lot of people do not care about passwords and a lot of people do not know what a vulnerability disclosure agreement is or what that means. Knowing for how long the device will be secure is like having an expiry date put on it.
That is an example of where a kind of market driver can impact consumer decision making, but one of the things that we know about cyber-security more generally is that, very often, market drivers do not work in this space. There is not really, to be honest, all that much of a market for cyber-security, as people do not really care about that. That is why we need to think about moving beyond the dominant narrative over the last 50 years that Governments stifle innovation. Even if we go right back to the beginning of digital technologies and the ARPANET and DARPANET, those things were wholly supported by the US Government. They were funded by the US Government; they were invested in by the US Government for decades before the private sector came on board. So there are these points where it is absolutely necessary for Governments to be involved and for governance to happen, because we cannot see the future. If people begin to lose confidence in these devices and they begin to fear—“I don’t want my child to have something like that. I don’t want Alexa in my house. I don’t want people listening to my conversations etc.”—all the incredible benefits that we can extract from those technologies will go by the wayside.
I will give just one very clear example of this. If you think about the huge effort that the banking sector put into making sure that people felt confident about banking online, spending money online and tapping their card—“When something goes wrong, the bank will take care of you”—the reason, the logic, behind that was that if people began to think, “It’s not safe to bank online; it’s not safe to use my card in these little shops,” they would stop doing it. It was that investment in regulating it, locking it down and making sure it was safe that has allowed us to get to this extraordinary situation where you can walk around with no wallet and just a phone. It is that thinking that is important now.
David Rogers: I think the transparency point is fantastic. This work is not done in isolation. There is lots of work going on about lengthening software updates for lots of types of products, and there are different regulations happening in Europe and so on. Consumers should not have to know about the details. Madeline has said this. They have an expectation, a very reasonable expectation, that they will not be arbitrarily hacked into. We have all read the stories about things like baby cams being hacked into. That is totally unacceptable, because at the end of the day the company that created and sold that product that was insecure at the time it was created is responsible for it. Of course, they did not hack into it, but they left all the doors open, and they sold that product and made money and profit from it.
Yes, I believe that consumers should know that they are being looked after, and the length of time that that is provided for helps them to make an informed decision—it is a free market. Also, security should not be a luxury for the rich. You should not be required to replace your iPhone, for example, just because the support ends. At the end of the day, we are all impacted by security issues. The Mirai attack, for example, was an extremely large distributed denial of service attack, which basically took down large parts of the internet. It was all those small IoT devices, routers and things that had been taken over. The attack did not discriminate between who had those devices, those older devices or whatever, but the impact and scale of that attack was the problem.
That is why we need to ensure on an ongoing basis that, as the technology develops, we can put new requirements through the standards bodies and endorse them. This is the start of that lifecycle, to ensure that those products do not enter markets like the UK.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Q
In that vein, is there something in the idea of a reporting mechanism—either by the Department or some sort of regulator, annually or however long is appropriate—for whether these organisations and manufacturers are working to the standards that you so strongly set out? They have had years to deal with the standards, but many are still not doing it. I am suggesting naming and shaming, if you will, to give consumers better informed decisions.
A lot of people borrow money to buy these devices. On Second Reading, I expressed a concern that many people will look in a retailer or online, and go, “If that doesn’t exist for this much time—if it only has two years on it and the loan is three years—why am I bothering to purchase it if it is obsolete in that time?” That is a concern that many people have. Consumers potentially do not know what this or that means, but they know what “security” means, and if they think something is not secure, then, as Professor Carr mentioned, they think, “Well, I won’t bother having that product, because it isn’t safe”, because that is how they view the word “security”, which is logical, but not necessarily the best option given what they are looking for. There are several questions in there, forgive me, but they are interconnected with what the Minister was saying.
Professor Carr: I will try to answer as many as I can, as well as I can. I am sure that David has comments as well.
On educating consumers, that question of “Will the loan outlast my device?” is a very astute one, because consumers do not need to understand—they never will—all the ins and outs of phone or device security, but that is a very pragmatic response: “What actually am I buying? I am spending for three years to buy two years of a phone.” That type of consumer education will snowball when people are presented with information on how long the device will last and asked, “Is that what you want?”
I guess online markets are already regulated. There are things that we cannot buy in the UK and that cannot be shipped here. It would certainly have to be a consideration that, ideally, devices that did not meet UK standards were not able to be shipped to the UK, but I guess that is the case with many consumer goods that we cannot buy online. There is a tendency to blame business in this scenario and to see manufacturers as careless or irresponsible, which surely some of them are. However, it is also the reality that businesses have to make a careful calculation on how they invest. If it costs more to produce a product and they are answerable to shareholders, they have to have a conversation about why they are spending more on a device that is already selling well and returning a profit. I am not saying that that is the way it should be, but that is the way the free market works.
Look at what happened with GDPR. In my work, we work a lot with senior business leaders and talk to them about how they respond to cyber-security regulations. They did not push back against GDPR or see it as terribly negative; they saw that it unlocked budget for them to use, because they could quantify what percentage of their global turnover a data breach would cost or what the fine could amount to. They can take that calculation to the board, and say, “Right—we mustn’t have a breach or it would cost this much. How secure do we feel we are?” That is where such regulations can have a very positive effect on industries that would like to comply but cannot just invest in all the different aspects of a device without some justification. This gives that justification. It unlocks that funding in those board conversations about where investment in products should go.
David Rogers: Just to address the Amazon/eBay question, I have seen all this stuff. I have bought some of it to have a look at. A lot of counterfeit and substandard—the Chinese call them Shanzhai—products are available. I have conversations in which people say, “This is about buyer beware. You’d never buy a £9.99 smart watch. You should know that that’s going to be dodgy,” but as you said, people cannot necessarily afford it. There is a peer pressure element to it, and there is a sort of endorsement by the brand. If you go to Amazon, you expect it to be a quality product, so people are lulled into that sense of security that what they are getting is quality. In some cases, that is not the case. I fully agree that the companies that are retailing this stuff cannot just lay the blame at the door of the companies that are stocking and selling it. If it is on Amazon Prime, surely Amazon has a responsibility over that.
Earlier, Dave mentioned different regulatory regimes and that there may be some fragmentation around the world. I actually think that there is probably a lot of alignment and harmony. There has been a lot of work between DCMS and the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the US, so there is a broad understanding of what good looks like. If, either through some self-declaratory measure or by some endorsed mechanism of compliance, those companies are told to come up with a compliance statement, that helps the likes of Amazon and eBay to select their suppliers appropriately and then to remove them from their stores more easily. At the moment, it is kind of a wild west. They do not have any questions or answers.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Q
Professor Carr: I think the Bill would be a hugely positive step. There is a lot more to be done in terms of regulating emerging technologies. As I said earlier, the UK is a country at the forefront of thinking about these issues and taking action. It is new territory, because we are not used to legislating about these things; it seems somehow interventionist, or that it stifles innovation. Actually, digital technologies have become so integrated into every aspect of our lives, from the most personal level to infrastructure, and we have not caught up with that in what we see as the acceptable responsibility of the Government, of individuals and of industry.
There has very much been a narrative that Governments need to stay out of this area. I think that is very dangerous and wrong, because that is how we have ended up in the situation we have been in. It is certainly a balance between those parties—Government, civil society and industry—but we are a long way from having that balance right. Governments are beginning to see that there is a mandate and that they have a responsibility. We see that not just in the UK, but certainly in the US, Australia, the EU. But there is a long way to go.
Ruth Edwards
Q
Professor Carr: I would like to see the range of devices extended—in particular, where it talks about toys and safety devices. There is a whole category of other devices that should be included, particularly when we think about children. There is a market emerging now for tracking devices for children, or these phones, which are not really phones but communication devices. I think the scope of the devices should be expanded.
If I had a magic wand and it was up to me, I would say that devices had to be supported for a minimum time. Otherwise, you end up with the very distasteful scenario that we were just talking about, where people who are less resourced are buying less secure devices and living less secure lives. I would like to see a minimum time that devices had to be supported.
I would say those two; I would go much further, but it is a good start.
Ruth Edwards
Q
“Current proposals risk unintended consequences for manufacturers and consumers”.
It points particularly to security requirement 2, which is to implement a means to manage reports of vulnerabilities, and notes:
“On vulnerability reporting, not all reports/vulnerabilities will require intervention. The Enforcement Body needs to carefully consider when to alert the public about security risks to ensure associated devices are not viewed as obsolete or that vulnerabilities yet to be mitigated are advertised to threat actors.”
What is your response?
David Rogers: I will be frank: I think they have misunderstood what vulnerability disclosure is. As I mentioned, there is an ISO specification for this. The security research community and the hacking community have been campaigning for this for years and years. It is well established. A lot of the bigger tech companies have recognised that this is the right way to deal with things. I am sure that you understand vulnerability disclosure, but the process is that if a security researcher or hacker discovers a vulnerability, they have an easy way to report that to the company confidentially. That process typically takes anything from 30 days to 90 days. At the end of that process, a fix is issued, if that is possible. It may even extend for a longer time if it involves other companies. Then the security researcher is able to go public with their work, but that is only after a fix is issued. This has been fought out over a long period, and is the right way of doing things. It is agreed between the hacking and the tech communities.
There may be some education work to be done for those manufacturers who do not understand that this is the right thing to do. They should be implementing vulnerability management schemes internally anyway. I think John Moor mentioned this morning that it is about quality. It is about good software quality measures and good software design. We have seen some really catastrophic problems caused by vulnerabilities that have been sitting there for years. That is the old world. We need to move on from that. The new world is about continuous software updates and a continuous product security lifecycle. People cannot just ship and dump products on to the market and leave them there.
The Chair
Can I bring in Kevin Brennan, as we only have four minutes before this panel comes to an end?
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Q
Professor Carr: Yes, I would.
Kevin Brennan
Q
Professor Carr: No.
Kevin Brennan
Why not?
Professor Carr: Because I do not trust them. There we go. I will not have one, because I do not trust it.
Kevin Brennan
Q
Professor Carr: No, to be honest.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Q
Professor Carr: It is impossible to answer that. That is what makes this type of legislation difficult. We do not know how the threats will emerge or change. A couple of years ago we could not have imagined that ransomware would be the threat that it has become, but the fact that we cannot anticipate the future with certainty does not mean that we cannot act now. Nothing will be sufficient to fix the insecurity of the digital world that we live in. No Bill will change that, but small bits of legislation beginning to address these vulnerabilities is the right way to go. I do not think that anyone should be afraid of doing this. This is the beginning of the future. Governments will not stand by forever and watch the damage and destruction that can be done by digital devices. We have to start somewhere, and I think that this is it.
David Rogers: I am coming from a slightly different position, but obviously I would like to see all 13 requirements implemented. I think that it does provide future proofing, because this provides the foundation of future trust for everything. Everything that we have written in there provides future underpinnings. If we are allowing industry-based organisations such as the European Telecommunications Standards Institute to maintain the specification for the future, that allows organisations to improve and add things. I think Dave mentioned biometrics, for example. They can go to ETSI and add to it, and let’s allow industry to develop that. Organisations such as NCSC and DCMS are also there to input into those standard bodies. I think it is a really strong start.
The Chair
Thank you. That brings us to a slightly premature end of this evidence session. I thank the witnesses, on behalf of the Committee, for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Catherine Colloms, Simon Holden, Mark Bartlett and Juliette Wallace gave evidence.
The Chair
Good afternoon. We will now hear oral evidence from Catherine Colloms, MD for corporate affairs at Openreach; Simon Holden, the group chief operating officer at CityFibre; Mark Bartlett, director of operations at Cellnex UK, appearing on behalf of Speed Up Britain; and Juliette Wallace, also of Speed Up Britain.
We have until 3.40 pm for this session. Will the witnesses introduce themselves briefly for the record, please, before I turn to the Minister? We will go left to right.
Simon Holden: I am Simon Holden. I am the group chief operating officer of CityFibre.
Catherine Colloms: I am Catherine Colloms. I am the corporate affairs director at Openreach.
Mark Bartlett: My name is Mark Bartlett. I am the operations director at Cellnex UK, representing Speed Up Britain.
Juliette Wallace: I am Juliette Wallace. I am the property director at MBNL, which is a joint venture between EE and Three. I also represent Speed Up Britain.
Julia Lopez
Q
Mark Bartlett: On behalf of Speed Up Britain, we very much believe that the changes proposed in the Bill are needed to speed up the roll-out of digital connectivity across the country. Therefore, we believe that changes are required.
In that sense, though, we need to look back to before 2017 to understand the policy behind the changes originally made, and to understand that those were made in order to achieve the outcomes that the Government were already trying to establish. Without the changes in the policy of 2017, this ambition will not be met. Speed Up Britain continues to support the policy ambitions as laid out in 2017, but the fact is that the law as put down at the time is not working and created loopholes, which have been exploited, and that has meant that we have been unable to proceed at the pace we wanted.
Catherine Colloms: To give you a bit of context, Openreach is the national broadband network. We are in the process of upgrading the existing network, which is a hybrid copper-fibre network, to a new full-fibre network. The ambition is to build 25 million full-fibre homes and businesses by the end of 2026. That is a hugely ambitious target. It underpins the Government’s 85% manifesto commitment, but we have to get to a ramp of building 4 million premises a year.
We are currently building at 50,000 premises a week, so we are heading up towards the 3 million a year kind of ramp, but from pretty much a standing start in about 2017, as there was very limited full fibre in the UK at that stage. We had finished building the old network and had not transitioned through. It is a really serious challenge. If you think about the pace of build and what we are trying to achieve, being able to do things really rapidly and operationally simply becomes incredibly important.
For us, the two big pieces that the Bill can potentially help us with enormously and help supercharge that fibre build is around access, that is access to multi-dwelling units—the approximately 6.1 million blocks of flats in the UK—and access to rural parts of the UK. There are some urban as well, but if you think about how we build, we have a duct infrastructure but we also have a very extensive pole infrastructure. For most of our rural build—we have committed to building 6.2 million commercial rural, which goes beyond the Project Gigabit programme that the Government are talking about to the hardest-to-reach areas—we are going to have to do most of that over our existing pole network. At the moment, the Bill makes some changes that are helpful and which progress us forward by allowing us access to upgrade our current infrastructure on underground ducts. What it does not do is allow us to upgrade the infrastructure we have in place, either over the pole network or in those blocks of flats.
If you think about what we have in place today, we have our existing network, so we have the ubiquitous either copper or hybrid copper network that is there today in pretty much all of these premises, all across our poles. We are trying to upgrade that network to full fibre as rapidly as possible and to do so, it would be incredibly helpful if we were able to upgrade our existing infrastructure. The Bill at the moment allows us, as I said, to do that through underground ducts. It is not going to allow us to get into either MDUs to upgrade more rapidly—we estimate that something like 1.5 million MDUs could be at risk based on our experience of unresponsive landlords and our inability to get in—and it also does not allow us to automatically upgrade our property and the infrastructure that we have over the pole network.
To give you a bit of context, we have 1 billion metres of cable over poling at the moment. The vast majority of the rural network is served over poles, so for us it is really important to be able to deliver those 6.2 million commercial rural, but also potentially the Project Gigabit programme. We have been working in Scotland on the R100 programme—the “Reaching 100%” Scottish Government programme. We need one wayleave for every 16 premises, to give you the sense of scale. We are finding the ramp very challenging and because of the scale and pace that we are trying to build at, what we really need is ease of access, ease of upgrade and that is the opportunity we think with the Bill.
Simon Holden: I think we are talking about two different sets of infrastructure here, which is worth explaining. We are talking about mobile and then we are talking about fixed-line fibre access. CityFibre is rolling out a fibre access network, mostly to consumers in the home. We are doing that across a footprint of 8 million households in the UK. The reason I wanted Catherine to go first is because we are utilising Openreach’s duct and pole infrastructure for three reasons. First, because it will allow us to go faster because we do not have to dig up the streets and lay ducts ourselves or put many more telegraph poles down. Secondly, because we are reusing and so can lower our cost, which means ultimately lower prices for the consumer. Thirdly, because it is just much more environmentally friendly if we can reuse those assets.
We are in favour of that, but at the moment we have this split between pre and post-2017 access. Our view at the time was that that made a lot of sense. Five years on from that now, it is a somewhat arbitrary split. So we think dealing with that is the right thing to do. In particular, the draft Bill’s proposals on ducts look fine to us. We would echo the point about poles. For us, poles are really important in rural, but also in Scotland. It turns out that in Scotland there are a lot of poles sitting in people’s backyards and just being able to access those to put our infrastructure on means that we can accelerate getting fibre access to all those homes. In our footprint, there are probably up to about 200,000 homes that we can access quickly if we can get that right, so we think that there is a real advantage to doing that.
For us rolling out fibre, there is a balance that you have to have here between access all the way through into the home, back to the public domain where, as a code operator, we can build in the public domain. I think we would say that our experience of getting landlords to come to the table is mixed and that the alternative dispute resolution mechanism proposed here is a good one to push that timetable down, so we can get to an answer.
I would also say, however, that when we get into the home, into a block of flats, the tenants really want the service. We have found that, once we have got the landlord and the landlord has given us the wayleave so we can connect into the front door of the block of flats, then wiring up inside is not particularly an issue. We are concerned a little with somehow grandfathering old wayleaves inside buildings, first because it does not seem balanced, but also because it will entrench the people who have those, which I would say is mostly Openreach.
In trying to promote competition and accelerate growth—to your question earlier, Minister, about whether growth has accelerated—the answer is that growth has clearly accelerated in rolling out fibre. That is absolutely happening. We have vibrant competition now, with billions of pounds being invested in this sector. Here is an opportunity to make it go faster, for us all to benefit with a frankly lower-cost solution.
We feel that what is on the table with that landlord dispute resolution mechanism is good. We do not feel that we need to go inside the building, frankly because once tenants have access to it, landlords are more than willing to give that connectivity, because they have happier tenants as a result. We have not found that that is a real impediment to us.
Julia Lopez
Juliette, did you want to add anything? You do not have to.
Juliette Wallace: I was not going to add any more to what Mark said on behalf of mobile.
Julia Lopez
Q
Mark Bartlett: Speed Up Britain represents the MNOs: Cornerstone, MBNL, Cellnex, which is a towerco, and DMSL, WIG and the industry as a whole. I will put some facts, some numbers, on the table to help us understand what we are doing.
Since 2017, we have completed about 1,000 agreements, of which 85% have been consensual and reached without any recourse to any of the processes associated with the legislation. Over and above that, 14.5% approximately required some form of exchange of letters of notice, but then moved quickly to agreement, and only 0.5% of any of those discussions ended up in the tribunal. In my experience, those that ended up in the tribunal have been the industry—us—versus the industry, or land aggregators, to be blunt.
The facts speak for themselves. In the main, as an industry, we run over 30,000 towers, which are visited frequently in order to upgrade, to maintain and to support the connectivity of the country. We do not see a landowner community, a landlord community, our partners as such, in a wall of non-co-operation, but almost the opposite. We speak to our landlords very frequently, we interact with our landlords very frequently, and therefore I do not recognise the characterisation as stated this morning.
Catherine Colloms: I am happy to talk from a fixed perspective. Generally, we have pretty good relationships with a large number of our landowners. Fibre and the copper and duct infrastructure we have is not a revenue generator for most landlords. You will have heard Charles Trotman this morning, from the CLA. We have agreements and rate cards, which were negotiated with the CLA and the NFU. We work closely in particular with those kinds of rural players to ensure that we have those in place. They are very effective and seem to work very well.
Just to give some kind of context for fixed, we do not tend to have these kinds of disputes, to the extent that you are not going to make a ton of money, frankly, by having a few poles on your land. A pole rental is between £10 and £20 a year, so even if you had a couple hundred poles, which would be unusual, that would mean only a couple of grand. If you think about ducting and cabling going through, that is anything from 19p to 49p a metre, so it is not a revenue generator per se. For us, the conversation with landowners is predominantly about access.
To Simon’s point, we find that we do have quite a lot of issues when it comes to MDU access, especially given the scale at which we are trying to build. We obviously have a machine of people who sit behind to try to negotiate, wherever possible, consensual agreements or wayleaves, but we would genuinely need an army of people to try to get stuff done.
For example, some of you will know that a couple of years ago we fully fibred Salisbury, which became one of the first full-fibre cities in the UK. We tried experimenting to test the limits of access and find out what would or would not be a problem with the roll-out. After two or three years of really concerted effort, including with John Glen, the local MP, being super-supportive and with loads of local PR, we could still get into only about 79% of MDUs, because of non-responsive and non-communicative landlords. If we were to scale the MDU team that we had for dealing with the amount of time it would have taken to tackle those unresponsive landlords, we would effectively be scaling from a team of about 17 to over 300.
As Simon says, the ADR processes are helpful predominantly when there are larger landowners, such as housing associations or local authorities. They are less helpful when it comes to the hundreds of thousands of wayleaves that we need in order to get into all the individual MDUs. That is why we think that the ability to upgrade the existing infrastructure, and therefore to give tenants the connectivity they deserve, is still the right mechanism to try to ensure that we can get the upgrade as quickly as possible.
Juliette Wallace: We do recognise, as the operator side of the industry, that in the very early days of the code—early 2018, for instance—the interpretation that we were trying to explore may have been a little too over-enthusiastic, shall we say. A lot of time has passed and we have learnt from that. I think that a lot of the examples that are provided to try to support the allegation of a David and Goliath approach are from very early in 2018, and they do not exist today. I think that we have moved on a lot, but we cannot be stuck with all the allegations of the past as well.
I do not agree that the David and Goliath approach is correct. As Mark said, to the extent that it is, what we are finding with the tribunal element of the approach is that it is actually industry arguing with industry; it is not small farmers, necessarily, who are behind that negativity. It is not David and Goliath; it is Goliath and Goliath.
Julia Lopez
Q
Catherine Colloms: The current target of 25 million full-fibre premises by 2026 did bake in some assumptions about access, particularly in relation to the upgrade rights in clauses 59 and 60, through MDU and through poles. On the impact of not having it, I think there is a kind of overarching impact. If you think of the challenges of the build and the scale of what we are trying to do, the harder it is to build and the slower it is, the less we can do. We are having to re-phase and re-look at the build that we are currently targeting, as a result of potentially not getting some of the elements in the legislation.
If I take the MDU point in particular, we have re-phased some of our MDU work to the back end of the 2026 target, the reason being that at the moment we just feel we are not going to get the access. As I said, our experience is that up to 1.5 million of those total 6.1 million MDU premises will be at risk. We are seeing that in a day-to-day aspect as we build, so we have re-phased 300,000. That will go to the end of the build, which means it does not count towards the 2025 manifesto target. It will still be planned within our build, but I think what will happen is we will just have to build different bits.
When we are building this rapidly, we cannot afford to sit and wait—wait to negotiate a wayleave, wait for an unresponsive landlord to come back, wait for an ADR process. Even though we have some of these mechanisms in place, we frankly do not use them, because there is not the time and we do not have the scalability to be able to wait for all these landlords, so while we are trying to build at such pace and scale, we effectively move on. What will happen in the short term is that we will still aim for our big 25 million target, but you will get a different mix, and we are already seeing that you will have less MDU in the mix. Obviously, the concern with that is that MDU is often urban and is often local housing or in more deprived areas, so there is a risk of creating a new digital divide—in particular, if you happen to live in a block of flats versus not—because of the access issues.
On rural land, we have this ambition to get to 6.2 million. Effectively, the way that we plan and build the network is we will pick an exchange, and we will survey that area and have a plan to build, but if we cannot get the wayleave, we will not build to the village that is beyond the wayleave. We will still get to our target, but you will get more pockets left behind in different places as we build, because instead of being able to build to 80% or 85% of an exchange area, one landlord might potentially be blocking the access that gets you to the village that is over there. If you cannot cross the land, the expense of having to circumvent it and go all the way around it means that that village build is prohibitive.
The Chair
Can I ask witnesses to please keep their answers shorter? I have had a number of Back-Bench Members already indicate that they want to come in.
Catherine Colloms: Sorry. I think it just changes the mix, effectively.
Simon Holden: I might just add that if Openreach is the Goliath and CityFibre is the David—certainly in rural—we would like to go into rural. This would be really helpful for us in order to make sure we can move at speed and at a sensible cost, and take advantage of the opportunities the Government are providing to accelerate growth there, so we would be in favour of that.
Juliette Wallace: On the mobile side, you asked about rural connectivity. Predominantly, that is going to come from new sites, and the code is actually working quite well with new sites—new land build-out. Our biggest challenges come from renewing the agreements that have expired on existing sites. That is where we need the changes in the code that this Bill addresses, and also the amendments to how the Bill is drafted so that it actually addresses the Government’s ambitions that came out as a response to the consultation.
Chris Elmore
Q
This is for Mr Bartlett. Forgive me if I am misquoting you, but I think you said 1,000 contracts have been negotiated since 2017. I am assuming those are all new sites, or are some of them renewals as well?
Mark Bartlett indicated assent.
Chris Elmore
Q
Simon Holden: We, CityFibre, are in cities. Probably 10% to 15% of our build is in multi-dwelling units. We are typically in underserved areas around the UK, and I would say that we have a disproportionate share of things like social housing that sit under our built portfolio. No. 1, we think that it is really important to be able to access those properties. I would say that big social housing landlords are embracing that, but it is patchy and we would value having the ability to accelerate negotiations as we are having them and have a really clear process where we can make sure that we get everyone to the table, with a fair resolution at the end of it.
Once you get access to the building, I think it is up to the building landlord and the tenants, obviously, as to how you are going to do the in-building wiring. As I said before, we found that once you have got hold of the landlord and you have agreed it, that does not tend to be a particular problem. What we are concerned about is that if you extend this back to historic wayleaves, all you are doing is effectively entrenching the people who have already got those, which most of the time is Openreach. We would think that that is not helpful for competition. That would be our observation, but in terms of accessing those properties, it is super key to us for our business model to be successful and, of course, for society to benefit from getting the best digital infrastructure to as many households as possible.
Catherine Colloms: As Simon says, most multi-dwelling units tend to be in towns and cities, so looking at the constituencies represented around this table, I can tell you, Chris, that you only have 3%. Hornchurch, in the Minister’s constituency, has 13%, and I think Hastings has 24%. They are very concentrated, classically, in urban areas, as Simon says, and often in potential areas of deprivation or areas which are less socially inclusive.
In terms of the access point, you are right. The idea of automatic upgrade would give us the right to do that. You still have to have a relationship with the landlord. That is still always the intent, but it comes down to the obligation. At the moment, there is no obligation for the landlord to do anything. New build legislation obligates them to put in a full-fibre connection, and there is a slightly different conversation you can then have that allows you to proceed with the wayleaves.
Mark Bartlett: To answer your question, first of all the current legislation is not working. At least over a half of all sites are stuck, so the landlord says that they are not renewing or getting new ones. Of those that are under renewal, there are absolute rights in the current legislation for landlords, if they wish to do so, to redevelop at the end of the lease and we have to leave. My estate would be measured in tens a year where it is their right and we move on.
In the current legislation there are also absolute rights for the operators to maintain that equipment if there is no redevelopment need. That is, obviously, very positive, because when we lose a site or a rooftop, whatever the infrastructure might be, that is serving hundreds of people in the community. Therefore, quite naturally, both the investment that we have made and the utility to the public need to be maintained, unless, as I said, the landowner has a genuine need to make that redevelopment, and that is enshrined in legislation, both today and in that passed pre-2017.
Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Q
Mark Bartlett: I think that would be human. I have never met anybody who wants to take a reduction in the amount of money that they are paid by anyone—that is not something that people work on. However, the policy was put in place to reduce the costs to the industry to allow investment in 5G, which is happening right now for the good of the country.
On the valuation point, it is a fact and a process that if we do not behave properly and that ends up in a tribunal, we would be penalised by the tribunal for the amount of money we have paid, and the judgment would fundamentally go against us, so there is a protection for the landlord there. Secondly, normally—in almost 100% of cases, in fact—we always offer more than the valuation criteria say we should. That results, normally, in a payment of several thousands of pounds, not several tens or several hundreds of pounds.
It is my experience that the majority of people understand that the law has changed and that, like when things change in how you pay your bills, things have fundamentally moved on. So long as we, as an industry, are fair and do not attempt to be over-enthusiastic, as Juliette put it, 85% of people do sign up and say, “Okay, I get it. I am still happy with those several thousands of pounds, and I am willing to make an agreement of that sort.” That is not everyone; 15% of people do not feel that, and we have a further conversation with them, and we come to an agreement with the vast majority of them as well.
I would also point out that this is often characterised as an individual change of an agreement—x to y. We often pay incentive payments to achieve an agreement as well. I would like to put that on the record. It is not just about a reduction in rents. I would also point out that, on average, it is a 63% reduction in rent, not the high 90%-type reduction, that has perhaps been characterised, by the industry.
Shailesh Vara
Sixty-three per cent. is still a significant sum for a small farmer who is counting every penny in his budget. The Committee can understand your reasoning in terms of policy and so on, but as far as the individual is concerned, I maintain—we will have to agree to disagree—that the 85% figure is somewhat misleading if taken in its individual context. I have made my point. Thank you.
Kevin Brennan
Q
Catherine Colloms: That is the current target.
Kevin Brennan
The manifesto target was for full gigabit by 2025, but that was dropped to 85% in November 2020, wasn’t it?
Catherine Colloms: I think you are right.
Kevin Brennan
Q
Juliette Wallace: When the new code came into effect, it set out how sites should be valued for the use of mobile infrastructure. Previously, there was no mention of how sites should be valued. Pre-2017, we had an industry that had been built up over the previous 20 years or so and that had got somewhat out of hand. Rather than paying a fair price to install infrastructure on land, a fair price being one that recognises what else the landowner could rent the land for—
Kevin Brennan
Q
Juliette Wallace: We have learned from the past. My comment about being over-enthusiastic related to the suggestion of David and Goliath with respect to the valuations. The valuations that were proposed very early, in 2018, were much lower than we are going out with now. As this Bill does not intend, currently, to adapt the valuation methodology, there should be no reason to think that the valuations that are currently being offered will change.
Kevin Brennan
Q
Mark Bartlett: It was 63%.
Kevin Brennan
That is the average. Could you tell us some of the figures for those who were worst affected? If 63% is the average, what were some of the biggest drops in income for people affected?
Mark Bartlett: At this point I obviously do not know—
Kevin Brennan
Would anybody have suffered a 90% reduction?
Mark Bartlett: I was about to say that at this point I can only talk about Cellnex UK, because obviously I am not aware of the commercial agreements of any other members of Speed Up Britain. I can be clear that there have, in a handful of cases, been—we have been open about this—90%-plus reductions in rent. But in the main, that normally means the rent itself was over-rented at the point of agreement—that is, we were paying drastically too much. On average, 63% is in line with the Cellnex UK achievement. We have to understand that we have an ongoing relationship with our landlords above and beyond a renewal. There is no interest in the industry for us to behave in a way that alienates our landlords.
Kevin Brennan
Q
Juliette Wallace: I was going to pretty much echo the Cellnex example. We have a handful that are towards 90%—in that sort of area. We also have some sites where the rent has gone up as a result of the new code.
Kevin Brennan
But the average has been a reduction.
Juliette Wallace: The average is a reduction, but it is creating a fair environment that says, “We will reimburse you for the land that we’re utilising.” As I say, we have a lot of sites where there has been no reduction and we have a small number where the rent actually increased.
Kevin Brennan
Thanks. I think everyone understood there was going to be a reduction, but I cannot remember those sorts of figures ever being mentioned at the time of the 2017 Bill.
Sally-Ann Hart
Q
Catherine Colloms: Effectively—let me take a multi-dwelling unit and then I will take a pole—we need to put a new fibre cable over some of these pieces of infrastructure. I actually have my kit behind me, which I can show you in a second. With an MDU, there is often fibre outside a premises; we will build to the curtilage. What we have inside an MDU is the existing cable—the existing hybrid fibre—that is going up inside the risers. You basically cannot see it. It then kind of pops on to a room. We would reinstall the new part of the full-fibre kit in the classic plant room downstairs, so that it is all with the maintenance bits. We then need a new small cable—this one is basically it; it is called InvisiLight—which we would run up through the risers. This is what you would see, or not see, running through corridors or along the wall. When you put this on a wall, you cannot find it because it is absolutely tiny. This cable has all the fibres running through it.
Sally-Ann Hart
The visual impact is going to be minimal.
Catherine Colloms: It is minimal. You often need a very small box that just sits on the top of someone’s door and you effectively put this cable inside someone’s flat to a new box. That is for an MDU.
For a pole network, it is similar in the sense that you need slightly more than this amount, because we will probably have some more cables in it. Over the existing pole infrastructure, you will have a new cable that basically has fibres in it. As you can see, this cable is absolutely tiny compared with copper, and it will serve hundreds of premises, as opposed to the copper, which needs to be a different size. You would effectively need a cable that is slightly larger than the one that I have here—because it would be protected—that runs across the existing infrastructure. You sometimes need some termination points, so there might be a few pieces of black plastic, which is effectively where you put various bits of the access network.
Sally-Ann Hart
On the telegraph pole.
Catherine Colloms: On the telegraph pole, but not every pole. It will be only on a few of the access poles, but we try to minimise the impact and keep it as small as we can.
Simon Holden: We are using exactly the same process and procedures, and the ducts and poles that are available, so my answer is the same.
Sally-Ann Hart
Q
Catherine Colloms: At the moment, the way that clauses 59 and 60 are drafted, they talk about “no adverse impact” as opposed to minimal adverse visual impact. The existing code under which we are currently operating talks about “minimal adverse impact”, which is why we have been able to put infrastructure in as we are doing today. That has not been transposed in the Bill. We are suggesting that if we could change the definition to “minimal adverse impact” as opposed to “no adverse impact”—with, for example, the MDU having something like this cable—that would allow us the ability to go in and upgrade with minimal adverse impact where we currently have the infrastructure.
Sally-Ann Hart
Q
Catherine Colloms: For me, it is the critical clauses 59 and 60. If we could extend the measure to multi-dwelling units, that solves your urban problem, but, critically, if we can extend it over the pole network, that is what will make the difference in rural areas. As I was explaining to the Minister, it is not necessarily that the target changes, because we will still try to do everything we can to meet the target, but the danger of not being able to upgrade existing infrastructure over poles is that you end up with pockets that are excluded as you upgrade. We are effectively trying to avoid getting all these pockets of digital divide in MDUs and cities, but also the little pockets as we are upgrading through rural areas at the same time.
Simon Holden: I would add one administrative point. The way that the Bill is drafted at the moment means that the main operator, which would typically be Openreach, has to notify the private landowner. The fact of the matter is that if we wanted to use it, we could equally notify the private landowner. What I do not want to do is either to burden Openreach with lots of my administration, or for that to become a bottleneck to the speed of my roll-out. We would propose that if it is the main operator or the new operator that has utilised that infrastructure, it could give the noticing. By the way, we are giving noticing to local authorities for works all over the place; we have a process for doing that. That would actually accelerate things from our perspective and not create an inadvertent administrative bottleneck from a process perspective. We can provide you wording on that.
Sally-Ann Hart
Q
Mark Bartlett: First of all, towercos have been around in the industry since the start. The BBC became National Grid became Crown wireless became Arqiva became Cellnex, and so on. This is not a 2017 phenomenon. Secondly, Cellnex itself has invested billions of pounds in the UK over the last couple of years and invests hundreds of millions of pounds a year, whether that is in connecting the Brighton main line or providing DAS, small cells, tower upgrades or new towers. To describe a huge enabler of connectivity across the UK as a middleman is, I think, a step too far. Fundamentally, we are an industry that is bringing connectivity to the whole of the UK; we are part of it, and we believe that these changes are needed to deliver it.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
Q
Mark Bartlett: That is a good question. First of all, do we collaborate as an industry to use shared infrastructure? We are required to do so under planning laws. In fact, towercos’ reason for being is to create efficiencies and share infrastructure, to the benefit of the community. We are, through the planning process, not allowed to stick one tower next to another. Those sorts of things protect the community, but also make sure that we exploit the infrastructure that we have today to maximum effect.
Secondly, in terms of sharing upgrade rights, obviously we have existing towers. At the point at which we need to upgrade for 5G, often we need to put more equipment on those towers, so it is important that we are able to do that without having to negotiate higher costs under the old regime, and that we are able to do that very quickly. To Catherine’s point, where we do not get agreement to upgrade a tower, it simply means—the local community around that tower is much further than 500 metres; depending on which technology you use, it might be 500 metres, but I will not go into that, and one big tower serves many hundreds of people—that that tower does not get upgraded and the money is spent on a different tower in a different community.
The power of the individual to affect the outcomes of the community is very high in the process that we have today, especially where the legislation does not work. To be frank, that is why the changes are required. It is not necessarily to overcome some battle with a land agent. We are simply attempting to create this connectivity solution across the UK as fast as we possibly can, and having the simplicity—while remaining fair to the landlord—of legislation that works and an operational process that works is going to enable that.
Is there anything else you want to add, Juliette? If I may, I will refer to Juliette on the technical—
Juliette Wallace: I do not think there is anything particular to add, other than to say that the shared rural network absolutely relies on the ability both to roll out new sites to new areas that are total notspots at the moment and to roll out sharing and upgrade capability on existing sites. If we do not get the changes in this Bill, we are going to be seriously reduced in our ability to effectively roll out, share and upgrade those existing sites. There are some sites where currently we have no mechanic to be able to renew those agreements. As Mark said, the power of the individual to frustrate the roll-out of new technology or increase technology to a geographical area is huge currently.
Rebecca Long Bailey
Q
Mark Bartlett: With respect, I am unable to answer that question as part of Speed Up Britain, because that is often commercially sensitive, but we can write to you. Mobile UK is part of Speed Up Britain, and they are the best people to ask. I will ask them to write to you directly to give you that clarity.
Rebecca Long Bailey
Q
Simon Holden: We architect what we call polygons, which basically go around our cities, and our objective is basically to cover every premise in the city polygon that we build. That is a commercial decision that we have made. We think that super-high-density fibre networks are the best way to cover a population and offer the best marketing opportunity to end customers. By the way, they allow you to do the densest 5G networks overlay on those.
In our architecture—which does not follow the Openreach architecture; it is our own—we use a series of ducts and poles in rings going around, and then run off coming from that. We plan, in our builds on our city polygons, not to have notspots. Sometimes we cannot go down a private road, because we need a wayleave and there is a process to go through to get that, but our policy is to try to cover as much as we possibly can. Typically, we cover 85% to 90% in what we call the first pass of the build, and then we start going back to do infill around that. At least where we are building today, we do not have that as a problem.
In rural areas, I think that will be affected by the BDUK process and the roll-out—we would like to participate in that—but our expectation is that we would be building and connecting from our cities all the way out to the deep rural areas, picking up the small towns and villages on the way. In those commuter towns, we would look to cover all those premises; if we are there building, we would rather just build it once and cover everyone. That is the best commercial opportunity that we see.
I do not think that we see what you are describing as a problem that we would be planning in to avoid; it would only be because we could not get particular wayleaves or particular access, a little bit as Catherine described, that we would end up trying to go around that. That is why this legislation will help us.
Catherine Colloms: If you think about the existing architecture—obviously, we have the existing architecture; we are still building new, but we are trying to reuse wherever we can, because that is cheaper and avoids digging up all your constituencies as we go—it is true to say that there is a greater proportion of underground ducting in urban areas, which this legislation, as drafted, would allow us to upgrade more easily than over the pole network or in multi-dwelling units. We have a much denser proportion of poles in suburban and rural areas, so at the moment, as the Bill is drafted, it is harder to upgrade rural areas than it might be to use the existing underground infrastructure, which is predominantly in urban areas, as you say.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, on behalf of the Committee I thank the witnesses for their evidence. I hope I have not hurried you along too much.
Examination of Witness
Till Sommer gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Till Sommer: I am Till Sommer, head of policy at the Internet Service Providers’ Association. We are basically the trade body for the fixed-line ISP sector in the UK. We represent a whole range of companies, from the largest infrastructure providers that you heard about from the previous panel, such as Openreach and CityFibre, to the smaller start-up companies and ambitious alternative network providers who roll out their own networks in urban or rural areas. Some of them are focused on Wales, and others are focused on England and Scotland—there are a whole variety.
Then, on top of that, we have a lot of companies in our membership that provide services across these networks. That includes some of the household names, such as Sky Broadband, but also smaller challenger brands or business-focused providers. So it is a really diverse sector and a very ambitious sector. There is a lot of competition in the sector and quite often that gets overlooked when you just look at the sector from the outside and you see a few large companies. As I said, there is a lot of variety in the sector.
Interestingly, because there is so much competition in the sector, our members hardly agree on anything; they always bicker about policy positions. And wayleaves is actually one of the few things where every single member who builds networks is saying, “This is the single biggest barrier to rolling out broadband for me.” That is one of the few areas where literally every single ISPA member says, “Something needs to change.” That is unique. On almost everything else, I could tell you a variety of views, and this is one of the few areas where everybody says, “Something needs to change.”
Julia Lopez
Q
Till Sommer: Yes, sure. The Bill basically does three different things: it is access to third-party land in rural areas; it is the alternative dispute resolution mechanism on a voluntary basis; and the third area is upgrade rights. Upgrade rights, as you heard from the previous panel, is one area where there is slight disagreement because, depending on how you fix that, it might give one set of providers a competitive advantage over the others. For that reason, I do not want to go into too much detail there.
At the basic level, we want more upgrade rights, because it helps to use the infrastructure that is already there, rather than digging up the road again, putting up new telegraph poles or, as was said, just not doing something at all because the money is not there to build in that area if you cannot reuse the infrastructure. Beyond that, I do not want to go into too much detail, or I will get into trouble with my members and they will all talk to you separately.
I will take the other two areas, including access to third-party land. We have a few members who are specifically focused on rural areas. They are effectively going at the moment where Openreach does not have a strong build. They are very ambitious. They have told us quite early on that this Bill is game-changing for them. Access to third-party land in rural areas is simply the one thing that will unlock additional properties in their roll-out plans.
The reason for that is that this part of the Bill effectively mirrors something that was done a year ago for multi-dwelling units in urban areas, because it looks at a problem that our members face; I will use a very simple example. Let us say they want to reach a rural hamlet and there are three routes to it—one across a farmer’s field, one across a railway line and one across a hilly area. The most economical route is across the farmer’s field, but that field might be owned by someone who is not living in the UK, or who does not look at their emails or their post; that farmer just does not respond. At the moment, there is no mechanism to get any sort of forward movement in that situation.
So, what happens is that the provider either moves on, because they decide that it is not economically viable to take one of the other routes to that hamlet, or they say, “Actually, no, we do go across the railway line, but we descope parts of the hamlet. The money just isn’t there any more to connect every single house. It’s still economically viable to go there, round the field, but it doesn’t quite reach the whole village.”
Third-party land access provides a mechanism to get access to wayleaves, or access to land, for a limited period in those very limited circumstances. That will unlock those properties that at the moment are at risk of missing out. I am sure some of you will have seen in the past an announcement from a broadband provider—you might have even done a press release with them—saying that they are building out to x number of houses in the constituency. Then, after two years—after the roll-out programme is done—the number is not quite there. Quite often the reason for that is because the build has been more difficult than expected, there have been unresponsive landlords and the money that was allocated for that area does not quite match the ambitions.
It is worthwhile keeping in mind that roll-out is privately funded. There is Government support for the hardest-to-reach areas and we appreciate that, but outside of that it is privately funded infrastructure, with a return on investment over 20 or 30 years. We need to make an investment case. The companies, our members, need to make the investment case for their investors, for their shareholders and for their owners, that they will at some point get that money back. That is why we sometimes need to make those difficult decisions where stuff is being descoped. That is why the Bill is so important; it helps avoid those areas and unlock that bottleneck.
I mentioned alternative dispute resolution; some of our members are a bit sceptical about it, and that is largely because they roll out on a very large scale. Having to deal with thousands and thousands of ADR processes can be quite daunting, time-intensive and costly. For that reason, we believe it is good that it is done on voluntary basis, with the clear incentive provided in the Bill that the tribunal will take ADR into account. It will help a lot when it comes to negotiations with large landowners; that can include local authorities, where our members often have to negotiate a headlease or a head wayleave agreement. That can be super-complicated, because there is part of the local authority that is really keen on getting broadband, but the people dealing with the wayleave stuff do not really care because it is not in their portfolio. There are then mixed messages coming from the local authority. On the one hand they are saying, “Can you please roll out broadband as quickly as possible,” but on the other hand there are people saying, “It takes another year to negotiate the agreement.” ADR will be really useful to make progress in those very large wayleave cases.
Julia Lopez
Q
Till Sommer: Yes, that is exactly right. If you cannot use existing infrastructure but you are still going to roll out the network, you need to dig up the roads. I assume you have all received lots of letters about roadworks and the problems that they cause. You either dig up the roads or put up new telegraph poles, which is more expensive and is another element of visual impairment and disruption. For that reason it is much more economical—and from a visual aspect, less intrusive—to reuse existing infrastructure.
Julia Lopez
Q
Till Sommer: We do. Basically, a key bit that our members provide to your constituents—their customers—is a router, plus other equipment, that is classed as an internet-connected device under part 1 of the Bill. We are in regular contact with your civil servants on that, to clarify timelines and how the Bill might bite. We do not have any concerns about the idea. We support the idea of the Bill; it is more about the implementation, and ensuring that the supply chain is aware of the new provisions that are coming in.
I have heard from a lot of our members that they have started to talk to their supply chain to say, “By the way, in a year, or in one and a half years, depending on when the Bill will be done, we need to ensure that your products comply with these rules.” Because a lot of the manufacturers are overseas, they are not yet aware of them. Anything that can be done to raise awareness among consumer product providers would be welcome. There are a couple of other bits that go very much into the detail around associated software, when it comes to parental controls, which could be affected. I am happy to write to you on that if you want, but we will talk with the Department about it anyway. It is very much nitty-gritty stuff.
Chris Elmore
The Minister took my last question on part 1, so I am happy to give my time to Back Benchers.
The Chair
Do any Back Benchers have further questions for Mr Sommer? In that case, I thank you very much on behalf of the Committee, Mr Sommer, for the evidence that you have given, and we will move on to the next panel, somewhat ahead of time.
Examination of Witnesses
Rocio Concha and Jessica Eagleton gave evidence.
The Chair
Good afternoon. We will now hear oral evidence from Rocio Concha, director of policy and advocacy at Which? and Jessica Eagleton, senior policy and public affairs officer at Refuge. We have until 5 o’clock for this session if needed, but as we have started ahead of time I am sure that nobody will mind if we finish ahead of time. Please could the witnesses introduce themselves for the record? Then I will turn to the Minister to ask the first question.
Rocio Concha: I am Rocio Concha, director of policy and advocacy and chief economist at the consumer group, Which? Thank you for the invitation to provide evidence. The Bill is quite important for consumers. We have been very supportive of the work that DCMS has done in the Bill. That is very good, and I hope that I will have the opportunity to explain how the Bill can be improved to achieve its objectives.
Jessica Eagleton: Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for inviting me to give evidence. I am Jess Eagleton, senior policy and public affairs officer at Refuge, which is the country’s largest specialist provider of gender-based violence services. We provide a host of services including refuges, community outreach and a specialist tech abuse team. I am here today to speak to you about technology-facilitated domestic abuse.
Julia Lopez
Q
Jessica Eagleton: Of course. The first thing to say is that we are seeing technology-facilitated domestic abuse becoming ever more prevailing. Technology in all its varieties is providing domestic abusers with a host of new means and methods to perpetrate abuse—to monitor survivors, track their whereabouts, harass them and stalk them—so much so that, as I said, we set up a tech abuse specialist team a couple of years ago. Of the women and children who we supported last year, 59% said that they experienced abuse involving technology, so we are seeing a growing threat.
The specific devices that we are talking about, which are covered by part 1 of the Bill, offer a whole host of ways for abusers to abuse. I am thinking about home security cameras and home security devices such as doorbells, which provide almost 24/7 oversight of a survivor’s movements in the home. Camera and microphone functions can be used to listen in on survivors and capture intimate images without consent, which can then be used later to threaten and coerce the survivor. There are also things such as smart plugs and smart thermostats, which can be remotely accessed and used to frighten survivors—for example, by turning alarm systems on, or putting blaring music on, in the middle of the night. That is happening in the relationship and after it as well, so we are seeing remote access being used in that way.
Some of our concerns about devices relate to access. Thinking about the power imbalance in a domestic abuse relationship, it is the perpetrator who often sets up such devices. They have the password and full admin access, which means that the survivor therefore has limited ways to access a device. We have had some difficulty when talking to companies to try to support survivors to take back control of devices, particularly once a relationship has ended and a survivor has fled. Where they have devices in their home to which the perpetrator still has full admin access, it is particularly difficult to get companies to override that. That is something that we would welcome further work on, in terms of companies taking steps to support survivors to make changes to settings.
Julia Lopez
Do you have anything to add?
Rocio Concha: Your question was on whether the Bill will help consumers to understand these issues, and it will. As you know, one of the principles in the Bill is transparency—when you buy these products, you will know for how long they will be supported. That will help with awareness. There is a lot more that can be done to raise awareness of these issues. There is a limit on what consumers will know about how to protect themselves, so the direction in the Bill about banning default passwords is quite important, as is the point of contact for security vulnerabilities.
Jessica has explained very clearly the harms. There is an opportunity for the Bill to be more assertive. At the moment, the Bill says that the Secretary of State “may” include baseline security requirements. We know that these are not the right baseline security requirements, so the Bill should be clearer that they will be included. We also think that the Bill needs to list the three security requirements, which would give a clear steer to the industry that they are to be introduced. We are worried that the Bill as drafted could lead to more delays in introducing things.
If we want the Bill to achieve its objective, we must be careful to ensure that online marketplaces are within scope. I would argue that they have to be because, as a consumer, it makes no difference whether you buy your smart product on the high street or from Amazon, eBay or AliExpress; you assume that the product is compliant with the regulations in the UK, so it is important that the Bill also covers that area. Otherwise, you know where the bad actors will go—they will be selling insecure products on those online platforms.
Julia Lopez
Q
Rocio Concha: On enforceability, if you do not include online marketplaces, you are leaving a big gap, because these products can come from any country in the world when they are being sold in these online marketplaces.
Another area that is not clear in the Bill is how consumers can get redress. As part of the transparency requirement, suppose that you buy a product that says that it will be supported with security updates for four years, but two years down the line, the manufacturer decides to change its mind and to support the product for only two years. Where would the consumer go in that instance? They bought the product on the basis that it would be supported for a set amount of years.
The other thing that is not clear is who the regulator enforcing this will be. Obviously, we need to make sure that the regulator has the skills, powers and resources to enforce it.
Chris Elmore
Q
Jessica Eagleton: Perhaps I can take your second question first. You are right that we are seeing concerns about these types of products being used to stalk and to monitor. In terms of concrete measures and what the Bill can do in this respect, we welcome some of the security requirements, particularly around the vulnerability disclosure scheme, as a step forward. For example, in the work that we do to support survivors, having that public point of contact and an easily contactable place for a company to go, when we are reviewing these products and putting forward recommendations to companies, is definitely a step forward.
We would have some concerns about situations where companies might publicly disclose security flaws and perhaps not take steps first to address them. We have that concern because that could, in essence, alert an abuser to a new way to abuse a victim. It could alert them to a device that they could purchase or that is already in their home that would provide a new way of compromising, so we would like to see companies taking all reasonable steps to address and action some of these security flaws before there is that public disclosure.
On your second point about services, our tech abuse team is a unique service in the country in providing specialist frontline support to tech abuse survivors, but it is a chronically under-resourced service. Perhaps in the context of this Bill, we would really like to see thought given to a percentage of the fines that the regulators collect for non-compliance by companies going, for example, to fund some specialist support services. I think that would fit within the wider ecosystem of enforcement as well. If we have specialist services that survivors can go to and ensure that they are sustainably funded and able to support survivors, that would contribute to the wider enforcement regime and awareness.
Chris Elmore
Q
Jessica Eagleton: It is not always thought about that the devices can be used in this way. A lot of the focus of companies in this space has been on how to prevent devices from being compromised by unknown third parties—hackers from overseas, for instance—rather than in the context of domestic abuse. Thinking about things like passwords and default passwords is a welcome step, but in the kind of relationships that we are talking about and dealing with on a daily basis, the perpetrator will force the survivor to divulge the passwords to their devices and all their online accounts. That is not necessarily always thought about by these companies.
However, we are engaging with the companies as much as we can on what we are doing as a smallish team. Thinking through what can be done in future, it is about continuing to place emphasis on and put work into safety by design, which means ensuring that, from the get-go, product manufacturers and designers are thinking about how these products could be misused by domestic abusers. It also means working in collaboration with specialist violence against women and girls services to ensure that those features are designed out as far as possible.
Chris Elmore
Q
Rocio Concha: In terms of the Bill, an example could be to change or tighten the definition that you have of distributors. In terms of implementation, online marketplaces are the gateway between the consumers and the manufacturers of these products. They are the ones that have the power to make sure that these products comply with the law. Let me give you an example. We routinely do product tests to identify security vulnerabilities with these products. Often when we go to the online marketplaces, we get the answer that, because there is no regulation, they cannot take these products out.
We need the regulation to be clear that any smart product needs to comply with these baseline security requirements. Also, we need regulation to put responsibility on the online platforms to make sure that they are monitoring proactively which products are being sold on their platforms. That is key, and I feel that it is not optional. It is quite clear what is going to happen. There are bad actors out there, manufacturing products that are not going to comply with the baseline requirements. They know that there are not going to be the necessary checks in there by the online marketplaces, but the consumer does not know. It is impossible for the consumer to make an assessment of whether the product will be secure or not. Unless we put in regulation, you can see where all these bad actors are going to go.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Q
Rocio Concha: I personally think that yes, the Government should provide information to consumers so that they are aware of this. Organisations such as ours also play a role, and we play it. We continuously publish our findings on security vulnerabilities and the sorts of things that consumers can do to protect themselves. There is a need for more information for consumers in general so that they can be aware that when they put these products in their homes, unless they take certain steps and buy products that meet the regulations that we hope will soon be introduced, they are putting themselves at risk.
Jessica Eagleton: I would agree with what my fellow panellist has said. When we think about tech abuse, we see that awareness of it is quite low among the general public. In fact, in a survey we ran last year the results were that two thirds of women did not know where to go for information if they thought that a device in their home was compromised. There is a role there for that awareness piece. At Refuge, the approach we tend to take is to empower survivors to use technology safely and to take back control of their products and technology. We have developed a range of resources to do that, but we would welcome more work and more efforts on this more widely.
Sally-Ann Hart
Q
Jessica Eagleton: The national domestic abuse helpline is the gateway to a wide range of domestic abuse services across the country. If she phoned the national domestic abuse helpline, we would be able to help her there, and help her with safety planning and next steps. We have some resources on our website and have recently developed a home safety tool that talks you through various devices in the home and gives tips on how to secure them.
Kevin Brennan
Q
Rocio Concha: Yes, we would support that. If it is not possible to include it in the Bill, we would ask that the Bill allows for it to be included in secondary legislation in the future. We would be very supportive of introducing minimum supporting periods for products.
Kevin Brennan
Q
Rocio Concha: No, we have not, but we have provided amendments in other areas. We have provided an amendment to allow the Bill to introduce this through secondary legislation in the future, and there is an amendment there. We would be happy to discuss that in more detail.
Kevin Brennan
Q
Rocio Concha: It depends. On these baseline security requirements, we firmly believe that the Bill should list them and be very clear that they will be included. In terms of the minimum security periods you provide to different products, it will depend on the different products and we do not want to delay the legislation to get to the bottom of that. It would be preferable to allow that legislation to be introduced as secondary legislation.
Kevin Brennan
Q
Jessica Eagleton: Some of the most common devices we see reported to us include your smart home hubs, smart voice assistants, smart TVs, plugs, light switches and fitness trackers. Those are some of the most commonly misused. I myself have various different connected products at home.
Perpetrators quite often set up a host of different devices in the home. Recently, we supported a woman whose former partner had bought a whole host of devices, including smart cameras, a smart doorbell, a smart thermostat—all those kinds of things. She and her child felt like they were constantly being monitored; they talked about how exhausted they were by that constant surveillance.
Kevin Brennan
Q
Jessica Eagleton: It is definitely a big consideration. That is why we advise that people get in touch with us and then we can help with safety planning. If a perpetrator has access to those devices and a survivor moves to take back control of them and change the settings, that can be detected by someone with that access. We would work with a survivor to safety-plan how to control her technology.
Kevin Brennan
Q
Jessica Eagleton: My fellow panellist may have some thoughts here as well, but that could certainly be useful for industry. Thinking about the general low awareness of tech abuse, it could be useful to provide industry with some certainty. It could play into that broader awareness piece, as well.
Ruth Edwards
Q
Rocio Concha: Is this about the length of time a product will be supported for? That information should be provided clearly at the point of sale, before you make a decision, so that you know you are going to buy something that may be supported for only two years, versus another product that may be supported for longer. That will hopefully provide everyone with the incentive to extend the number of years for which a product is supported.
We also need to make sure that that information is very clear. We should avoid “up to three years” and “for the lifetime of the product”, which do not really mean much for the consumer. For the consumer to be able to act on that information, it has to be very clear and easy to find when they are making that decision. That is what I would say.
On changing the security, I am a little worried about the industry saying that it may change the period during which a product will be supported. If that change is to extend that period—great; if it is to reduce it, that is very bad. At that point, the consumer has made a decision and bought a product because that product was going to be supported for longer.
If someone was told that a product would be supported for four years, and they later found out it was two years, that product would not be fit for purpose. Under the Consumer Rights Act, you have a right on the same grounds as the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Committee members, that brings today’s sitting to a close. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for their evidence this afternoon. The Committee will meet again on Thursday at 11.30 am in Committee Room 14 to begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Steve Double.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Commonwealth Day
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Commonwealth Day.
I am delighted to work under your chairmanship again, Mr Davies. We have, for many years, worked together on various things, both here and in Europe. I am delighted also to see so many colleagues joining us to celebrate the Commonwealth.
If I may, Mr Davies, I will start on a sad note. Emilia Monjowa Lifaka, chair of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, unfortunately passed away, as you know, in sad circumstances. She was from Cameroon—a remarkable lady who was one of those people who go through life setting the room alight. She was absolutely sweet. Her death caused a vacuum, which has now been filled temporarily by me.
I am delighted to introduce the debate for a load of reasons. First, the Commonwealth, as my colleagues know, is 111 years old. It is one of the oldest—dare I say it?—non-governmental bodies in the world, and it has enormous respect. For the record, 17,000 parliamentarians, 180 Parliaments, 54 countries and 2.4 billion people are part of the family that we call the Commonwealth.
This week is very pertinent because yesterday we had the Commonwealth service in Westminster Abbey, which is always interesting. I am sitting next to a couple of my friends—my right hon. Friends the Members for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell)—and we are delighted that this week we have the Westminster Seminar, which is ongoing, as we speak, in the Attlee suite. That seminar is 70 years old this year. The Commonwealth, as a family, has shown time and again that it breaks every record.
As chairman of the UK branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and international vice-chairman, I am always grateful for the support that the House and the other place give. Every party in the House, and every Member, is an enormous supporter of the Commonwealth, and I am grateful for all the work that colleagues do—not just here in the United Kingdom, but overseas—in welcoming delegates, wherever they come from across the Commonwealth, and going on trips, sometimes at short notice, which can be fairly onerous as we know. You, Mr Davies, have been involved, and I am grateful for the time and effort you have put in over the years.
Was yesterday’s Commonwealth Day just a symbol or an annual occasion? Some people may think it was a bit of both, but let us put the matter in perspective. The world is watching in horror and disgust as the tragic death and destruction in Ukraine unfold. That is why the peaceful symbolism of the Commonwealth has become more important than ever. For anyone who saw the moving service in Westminster Abbey yesterday, or was lucky enough to be present, as I and colleagues here were, the true meaning and the lasting value of the Commonwealth shone through.
It was terribly sad for us all that Her Majesty the Queen, in her 70th year on the throne—she has provided enormous support, stability and guidance over all those years—was not able to attend the service. We were obviously delighted to see His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall, and Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. That was very special indeed, but I know that we all send Her Majesty our heartfelt wishes to get better soon.
In normal circumstances, the Queen is an absolute stickler for duty. I suspect her doctors probably said, “Look, stay at home,” but I know one thing: she does not give in easily. However, the decades of loyal service are catching up with her, and because she has only recently recovered from covid, I think she has, more than any other person, an excuse for saying, “I can’t attend.” I am convinced, however, that she can play, and will continue to play, a highly influential role in the development and success of the family that we call the Commonwealth. I hope colleagues will join me in that, for that is what the Commonwealth really is—a family. It is no cosy club, let alone, God forbid, a political movement.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. My hon. and gallant Friend has alluded to the fact that the Commonwealth can be regarded as a family—I have two brothers, so I know that, occasionally, there can be tension in a family—and I applaud him for his excellent work with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, of which I have some direct experience. I know that people get more out of the Commonwealth than they put in.
Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that the jurisdictions that we are able to help from this place find it immeasurably helpful to share not only democracy, but also the same values, legal system and language, to the benefit of what was once the British empire?
Mr Liddell-Grainger
I would like thank my hon. Friend on three counts: first, for his courtesy in intervening, as he raises a very important question; secondly, for all the work he has done on behalf of the Commonwealth; and thirdly for the overseas trips he has undertaken very nobly.
The point my hon. Friend makes is absolutely right. There are hiccups; in any family, there will be hiccups. Hopefully this year we will welcome back the Maldives and Zimbabwe. We resolved an issue with Fiji, and they came back into the Commonwealth. We do not like to exclude anybody, as my hon. Friend alludes to. We try to work with any country that has an issue to make sure that they understand what we can do to help them, and maybe how they can help us. It has been a very successful formula; we have never completely excluded anybody. Even in the worst days, with some of the things we have seen over the years—I am a little older than my hon. Friend—we have never done that. We have kept things going. Therefore, my hon. Friend is absolutely right that this is an amazing organisation, based on mutual trust as much as anything.
The Commonwealth is a genuine association of nations with worthy aims and the mission to improve the lives of all its members and their citizens. We are talking about very big numbers across the world. Commonwealth Day was observed and celebrated by people in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, the Americas, the Pacific and, of course, here in Europe.
The Commonwealth of Nations, which is its proper title, has 54 nations. It is impossible to open an atlas without finding somewhere the footprint of that extraordinary organisation. On the continent of Africa are Botswana, Cameroon, The Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, the Kingdom of Eswatini, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Uganda, the United Republic of Tanzania, and Zambia. To the east, we have Bangladesh, Brunei, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Singapore and Sri Lanka. In the opposite direction, over the Atlantic, there are Antigua, Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St. Lucia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, not to mention, of course, Trinidad and Tobago. Across the other way, towards the Pacific, we have Australia, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. It is a really incredible worldwide membership.
Some of us may be very lucky and hopefully get away to the beaches of Cyprus and Malta this year, provided there are no further problems. Both of them, which comes a surprise to some people, are members of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth occupies one quarter of the world’s landmass, and is home to 2.6 billion people. To put that vast figure into perspective, here are some timely comparisons. Russia has a population of 146 million. Even the former Soviet Union, which Vladimir Putin wants to put back together, apparently, would only account for 300 million people. The Commonwealth is enormous: big not only in size but, I am glad to say, big in ideas.
We are committed to the institution of world peace and the promotion of representative democracy. We stand for individual liberty, the pursuit of equality and the opposition of racism. We only fight discrimination, poverty, ignorance and disease—I want to get that message across. We want a safer planet. A democratic planet. A free world with free trade and the freedom to express ideas and the pursuit of common goals.
At this stage I would like to mention my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke and her phenomenal work with the Women and Equalities Committee across the world. I am so grateful for all the work she has done. I have a feeling, if I dare say this, that the Kremlin would not understand a word of this, and I also have the feeling that they should learn.
The Commonwealth is far more than a throwback to the days of the British empire—that is a silly myth. Although it is perfectly true that many of the great Commonwealth countries were once British colonies, look at them now: independently governed, democratically elected, not owing their lifeblood or their existence to a long-gone empire. Thirty-four of its countries are republics; 15 others are Commonwealth realms where our Queen, the Head of the Commonwealth, is also the Head of State; and five countries—Brunei, Eswatini, Lesotho, Malaysia and Tonga—are monarchies, with kings and queens in their own right.
Mr Mohindra
My hon. and gallant Friend is making an excellent speech; those who have heard him speak before will not be surprised by that. Does he agree that there is quite a young population within the Commonwealth? From my understanding, about 60% of people in the Commonwealth are below the age of 29, and therefore the next generation has seen the benefits of being a partner within the Commonwealth family.
Mr Liddell-Grainger
I thank my hon. Friend again, because that is a very good intervention. He is absolutely right: this is a very young organisation. If we take India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and a lot of Africa, these are very young people. As you well know, Mr Davies, the younger you get people, the more you can influence them, and democracy is something we fight for and live for. We want to foster that, and it is taught in schools. I have just come back from Pakistan, where I was with Stephen Twigg, the secretary-general of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. We went to see schools where they teach children of six and seven about what it means to be part of Pakistan, and about democracy and the way it works. We were surrounded by MPs from Pakistan who came out to talk to the kids as well. It was a great thing.
Saying that we are a family takes in every age group, ethnicity, colour, creed and religion, and that is the beauty of the Commonwealth: it is all-encompassing, and age is just one facet that we love to deal with. I am very grateful to colleagues that the Westminster Seminar series is looking at this part of it. We sit there in the Attlee suite, and one of the things we embrace is the ability for young people to aspire. Nothing gives me more pleasure than to find somebody from Tonga who has gone to Canada, somebody from Canada who has gone to India, somebody from India who has gone to New Zealand, or somebody from New Zealand who has gone to South Africa to work within our family. Our scholarship and fellowship schemes are quite remarkable.
As I say, these countries all do their own thing, but they prefer to stay signed up to the ideals of the Commonwealth. Any Commonwealth country can leave. We started with eight countries when Her Majesty came to the throne; we are 54 now. Nobody leaves—they join. Why? Because they know what they are getting. What is on the tin is in the tin, and they understand that. It is funny how many countries want to join us. Sometimes, like with Mozambique or Namibia, people might say, “Well, it is a bit tenuous.” Rubbish! We are delighted for countries to join whose creation Britain has had a part in—probably not quite the part they wanted, but we had a part in their creation, and they want to join us. That is important. There are only two Commonwealth countries that did not have any connection with the empire. Namibia is one; the other, of course, is Rwanda, which has gone through a frightening history and is now an enormously valued part of the family.
Slowly, patiently and effectively, the family of the Commonwealth is spreading the doctrine of parliamentary democracy across the world. It works at different speeds in different places, understandably, but there is no doubt in my mind—or, I hope, in the mind of any Member of either House—that it does a good job. We reject dictatorships. We seek agreement through debate, with the active participation of the people via the ballot box. That is what we do as an international parliamentary association and as its individual nation branches, including the one right here in Westminster, which is phenomenal: I thank my colleagues and Members of the other place so much for the work they do. The network is registered throughout the world, and recognised throughout the world as an invaluable source. It brings people together and nurtures co-operation. If it did not exist now, we would certainly never invent it.
But there is a problem—one that, sad to say, the Government at the moment have not been able to address or recognise. For reasons that make little sense to me, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is a registered charity. That goes back into the mists of time; I do not know why it was set up that way in the first place. That would be fine if the CPA were purely in the business of raising funds for worthy causes, but we do not need the sorts of tax breaks that go with charitable status—it is not what we do. We are serious players in a serious process of effective diplomacy across the world. We have something to offer that is proven, practical and effective. We help all parliamentarians in the Commonwealth. We aim for best practice; we teach best practice; we want good governance and know how to get it. That is our strength. It is surely high time that the CPA is given the status it richly deserves.
All we are asking for is legal status in the UK similar to that enjoyed by comparable organisations. We do not want to be any different from them. We just want it changed so that we are comparable, for example, with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Francophonie, a group of parliamentary nations that share the French language—Belgium, Canada, Belize, Cambodia—in a mini Gallic commonwealth. Such legal recognition would enable the CPA to have more positive influence.
I do not think that is much to ask and the time has come. The former Lord Speaker, Baroness D’Souza, introduced a Bill in the other place, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (Status) Bill, which is working its way here. A few weeks back, I launched a ten-minute rule Bill, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (Status) (No. 2) Bill, with exactly the same wording, to get the legal status recognised. The enthusiasm for change unites all parties throughout both Houses of this Parliament. Mr Speaker is an enormous advocate of the Commonwealth, as is the Lord Speaker, who spoke at the Westminster Seminar yesterday. I am very grateful to Mr Speaker, who has been incredible in the past 24 hours, appearing at almost every event. It would be fitting to pay tribute to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in Her Majesty the Queen’s jubilee year. She has presided over the incredible growth of the organisation.
I know that Ministers have so far reacted to the idea without enthusiasm, even though it will not cost a penny. It will make no fundamental change to this place and no difference to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. It will make no difference to the way we operate. We will operate in exactly the same way, but it will make a massive difference to the way that we are seen in the world, and the organisations we can become part of. I say gently to the Minister that I sincerely hope we can help change the Government’s views on a fairly small but fundamental change. These are very dangerous days for world peace. We should show leadership as a nation and support all efforts to promote democracy, not just in the Commonwealth but obviously elsewhere. The alternative is as brutal and deadly as Russia proves hour by hour. That is what we do not want to see.
The Speaker, for the first time, is leading his own delegation to India in a couple of weeks, about which we are absolutely delighted. It is right that the Speaker of the House of Commons should be able to lead delegations, and I hope colleagues agree that is a welcome change. I know colleagues will join me in thanking the CPA team in the House, led by chief executive Jon Davies and Helen Haywood, which looks after CPA interests in this country and across the world.
I would also like to thank Stephen Twigg, who is the secretary-general of CPA international, based across the road from here, for the work that he and his team have done. It has not been easy for either team over the past two years. We have had to keep everything going and keep in touch with everybody round the world, when we could not go anywhere. The frustration for me and Stephen was that we could not send colleagues or get into delegations, with everything done by Zoom. Last week in Pakistan we met a female MP who said to Stephen:
“Gosh! You are a lot taller than you look on Zoom.”
That probably summed up the past two years. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke knows, that was Shandana, who is chair of the women’s caucus and forum, the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians.
Lastly, it has been a great privilege to be part of the CPA for a decade. I follow on from a line of very noble people who have led the CPA UK branch, and it has been a remarkable experience for us all. One thing I will never cease to be amazed by is that, everywhere I go in the Commonwealth, I realise that people are truly grateful for the work we do on benchmarking, for the way that we do our academies, and for the way we work with other Parliaments through Clerks, through Hansard and through all the other things that we take for granted but which so many other places do not. It is what gives us our strength. It means never resting, never stopping, growing the Commonwealth, and making sure we do it in the name of democracy and in the name of the people whom we represent: the people of the world.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) on setting the scene so well. His deep interest in this subject is apparent from his comments, and I thank him for all the hard work he does.
The hon. Member referred to the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I endorse his comments about what the CPA does and the importance of having it in place. He also referred twice to parliamentary democracy and how important it is to set an example, which the Commonwealth clearly does. As we are all reminded every morning and night on our TV screens, some parts of the world are fighting for their democracy; we think of Ukraine, as the hon. Member rightly said at the beginning. We concur with his comments about Russia, but we are greatly encouraged by the Ukraine military’s spirit and the courage that people are showing against Russian aggression. We are proud of that.
We are also very proud to be part of the Commonwealth of 54 nations. The Commonwealth spans 54 independent countries, and about 2.6 billion people—out of some 7.9 billion globally—live in the Commonwealth. That tells us about the size and importance of the Commonwealth, and about what it does. I share people’s adoration of the Queen, who by her very Christian faith and life sets an example for us all in this House and across the world. She is also the Queen of 15 Commonwealth nations, whereas five other countries have their own monarch and 34 are republics. The Commonwealth makes up a quarter of the world’s landmass. Such stats illustrate the importance of the Commonwealth, its size and the role that it plays across the world.
Along with India and Australia, the giant of the Commonwealth group is Canada. I well recall emigrating to Canada as an 18-year-old—it was not yesterday. Canada was the country where I was a landed immigrant for a year. I was a bricklayer there; it was good to experience, as a young person, what the Commonwealth has in Canada and what it can offer. One of the great things about the Commonwealth is being able to enjoy that. Canada is the world’s second largest country by area, but the beauty of the Commonwealth is that we also embrace the smaller states to which the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset referred— states such as the Pacific islands of Nauru, Samoa, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, as well as Dominica, Antigua and Barbados in the Caribbean. This great Commonwealth represents a cosmopolitan world through countries large and small.
As a Commonwealth of nations, we believe in democracy, freedom and a common purpose to extend the arm of friendship to many countries across the world. It is mutually beneficial to be a member, and the combined GDP of the 54 countries is some £7.5 trillion—twice the size of Japan’s, but some way behind that of the US. Trade with the Commonwealth accounted for some 9.1% of the UK’s total trade in 2019, and UK exports to the Commonwealth were worth around £65 billion. That tells us that the importance of the Commonwealth lies in our trade and in nations coming together. Imports from the Commonwealth were worth around £64 billion, so the value of what we sell them is comparable to the value of what they sell us.
It is clear that it is a good thing to do business with friendly neighbours. Although this is not a Brexit debate, it has always been my hope that we can be separate yet distinct in Europe with our friendship. The despicable treatment of my country, Northern Ireland, as a political football has disabused me of that notion. Were we to treat one of the Commonwealth countries with such malice and contempt, the world would rightly call us out. Unfortunately, Northern Ireland’s treatment by Europe has been widely accepted and continues—but that is a discussion for another day as it is not the subject of this debate, although it is important to put it on the record.
Now, more than ever, the arm of friendship should be extended within our Commonwealth family to ensure that we are getting and giving the best of those with whom we share the commonality of the Commonwealth. We share many cultures, much history and even, in many cases, the same language. We must also use our position to encourage members that do not allow religious freedom to do so. The Minister knows that I often speak about that and although I suspect that she has already prepared the answer to the question that I will ask, it is important to put it on the record.
According to the Pew Research Centre, 70% of people who live in Commonwealth countries face high or extremely high Government restrictions on their right to freedom of religion or belief. Worse still, some 88% of those people face high or very high social hostility simply for holding minority beliefs. I declare an interest: I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief. As we celebrate the Commonwealth, will the Minister tell me, the House and those watching the debate what has been done to address the persecution of those in this great Commonwealth who have Christian beliefs, other beliefs and, indeed, no beliefs? I would like there to be freedom of religion for all—and I know, without even asking, that the Minister does as well. It is important that one of our pleas should be for that to be improved, and I hope that it will be.
I will also make another honest plea. As we approach St Patrick’s day on Thursday, I am ever mindful that the Republic of Ireland is not part of the Commonwealth. Would it not be great if they were? It is not too late to ask them—we ask them regularly. We want them to consider that gently but honestly, as friends. I see membership as something that could be advantageous to them and to us. Their inclusion would make the Commonwealth bigger, greater and better. I ask the Minister this: has there been any opportunity to see whether the Republic of Ireland would join the nations brought together by this great multicultural Commonwealth and by a common desire?
This great challenge must be met head on. I urge the Minister to take the baton of that challenge and work sensitively and effectively with all our Commonwealth brethren to bring about religious freedom for all. Trade is a wonderful positive point, but we must all ensure that we exert any positive influence that we can, at any opportunity, to bring about change.
I am eternally grateful for the leadership of Her Majesty the Queen in matters of faith—I know that those are a priority for her. We can and should follow the example of that wonderful lady by pressing for religious freedom for all. We can do more with the body and the mechanism of the Commonwealth to improve lives, but we must also take the opportunity, in this dark world, to shine a light at any and every opportunity. The goodness of the Commonwealth, in what it does and what it can do, can help this country to be a brighter shining light for all.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I am delighted to have co-sponsored the debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger), and I congratulate him on securing it on Commonwealth Day.
As a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, I appreciate the importance of the interconnected nature of the Commonwealth and the need to keep and strengthen the strong cultural, trade and diplomatic relationships between the countries of the Commonwealth. I am looking forward to strengthening our sporting ties this summer, when we will welcome people from across the Commonwealth to Staffordshire, particularly the west midlands, for the Commonwealth games. I welcome the Minister to her place. I know that she shares my enthusiasm for the games, as the mountain-biking event will take place in Cannock Chase forest, which borders our two Staffordshire constituencies.
I am honoured to have been appointed as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Kenya, one of the leading Commonwealth nations in east Africa. The close Commonwealth connections between the UK and Kenya mean that it is one of the first countries that the UK has done a trade deal with in this area following our exit from the European Union. I was pleased to be at the signing of the UK-Kenya economic partnership agreement, which I believe will provide continuity for UK businesses and help to create more jobs, both at home and abroad. From my recent visits to Kenya to meet British businesses working in east Africa and Kenyan Government Ministers, the importance of this trade agreement for our mutual prosperity is very clear. Such trade deals are being replicated across the Commonwealth, increasing economic prosperity for all Commonwealth citizens.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset, I attended the Commonwealth service at Westminster Abbey yesterday with the Prime Minister and the royal family. I sat alongside a number of African MPs who were here this week in London to attend the Westminster Seminar. I was struck by how united the Commonwealth is in its aims for the future and how immense the potential is to tackle the great global challenges we all face, including one of the biggest threats to our current way of life: climate change.
I attended the COP26 summit last year in Glasgow to meet with parliamentarians from around the world who are all so dedicated to delivering sustainable development goals and looking at ways to promote international conservation. It was clear from talking to those MPs that there is international will to tackle climate change. In particular, there were strong commitments from Commonwealth nations. I welcomed the Glasgow Climate Pact, which includes a plan to phase down the use of unabated coal power, as well as the Global Methane Pledge, which was signed by over 100 countries, committing at the summit to cutting their methane emissions by 30%. These steps will lower greenhouse gas emissions and help to reduce the use of fossil fuels, which ultimately will help us tackle climate change.
As ever, it is vital that these agreements are what make a real difference on the ground. I note that the COP26 President, my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), recently said at COP26,
“This is our last hope…Our best chance of building a brighter future.”
I welcome the fact that he retains the COP presidency until November this year, so that we can continue to make progress on tackling climate change. I believe this is a real opportunity to build on the plans to reach net zero by 2050; as a global Britain, we should continue to use the COP presidency as a platform to protect our planet further.
Climate change and damage to the environment are occurring now as I speak here in Parliament. In the last minute alone, we have lost 30 football pitches of forest and at present, over 1 million species are facing extinction. Those are staggering figures. The reality is that climate change is not just about statistics or abstract concepts of temperature modelling: it impacts the lives of people every day living in the Commonwealth. Sadly, it is only set to get worse in the future if we do not work together to tackle it.
I am sure that, like me, many Members saw Tuvalu’s Foreign Minister Simon Kofe’s very emotive speech at COP26. He said, “We are sinking.” The camera then panned behind him to show that the island where he was standing was actually under water. As they say, a picture really does speak a thousand words. Climate change and rising sea levels are a problem not just for Tuvalu but for British overseas territories and other countries throughout the Commonwealth.
Also at COP26, the UK launched the Clean Green initiative to help developing countries take advantage of green technology and grow their economies sustainably. That included a doubling of UK-aid-funded green investments to more than £3 billion over five years. It provides new guarantees to support clean infrastructure projects in the Commonwealth and throughout the developing world.
One of the obvious opportunities for renewable energy is in east Africa with solar. Let us face it: Africa has a lot more sun than we do in London. On my first visit to Kenya as trade envoy last year, I saw first hand the transformative impact that renewables can have in Africa. I toured east Africa’s largest solar plant—Malindi—which was built by the British firm Globeleq using $32 million of financing from CDC Group, now British International Investment. The plant’s 157 solar panels began powering a clean energy transition earlier this year. That is a great example of where the UK-Kenya economic partnership is already delivering clean, green infrastructure on the ground in Kenya today and is the type of collaboration I would like to see replicated across the Commonwealth.
We have also seen deforestation throughout the Commonwealth; sadly, it is exacerbating climate change. As the chair of the sub-committee on the work of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, I have recently held an inquiry on international climate finance and how UK aid is used for halting deforestation and preventing irreversible biodiversity loss. We had a recent oral evidence session with Lord Goldsmith as the Minister for the environment at the FCDO. I asked the Minister how the Government see the role of tackling deforestation and protecting biodiversity, specifically in relation to reducing poverty. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that the Government are now actively looking for nature-based solutions when planning Official Development Assistance-funded projects.
Tackling deforestation and planting trees is one of the areas where the Commonwealth is leading the world. The Queen’s Commonwealth Canopy, launched at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in 2015, is an excellent example of how all Commonwealth countries are collaborating to make a difference to our planet. This is a flagship international conservation project and comprises millions of trees, from the Maldives to Malawi, from St Lucia to Singapore. It will eventually link Commonwealth nations across the globe, which demonstrates the power of the Commonwealth working together for the common good.
The project is also being replicated here in Great Britain. Earlier this month, I was delighted to plant my first tree for the platinum jubilee at Flash Ley Community Primary School in my Stafford constituency. Not only will that fruit tree teach local children about caring for the environment, but it also forms part of the Queen’s Green Canopy, which aims to encourage every community throughout the United Kingdom to plant trees to mark Her Majesty’s 70th year on the throne and expand the tree canopy in the Commonwealth. I encourage all my colleagues to do the same and especially the Minister, as my next-door neighbour in Staffordshire.
In conclusion, I applaud the efforts of all countries in the Commonwealth that are aiming to create a sustainable future that is more green. The Queen, as the Head of the Commonwealth, said it best in her recent Commonwealth statement. She said we must:
“endeavour to ensure the Commonwealth remains an influential force for good in our world for many generations to come.”
I absolutely agree.
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
I call David Mundell—and not just because he is wearing a Commonwealth tie.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and to take part in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Theo Clarke) and for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) on sponsoring the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset in particular for the work that he does as chair of the UK branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and for the work that he is doing on the international front, stepping in, as is his wont, to challenging situations and carrying that work forward with his usual good humour and disposition.
Last week, I had the pleasure of taking part in a Commonwealth day celebration in another Parliament. I was on the steps of the Lesotho Parliament in Maseru with the Speaker of that Parliament and the President of the Senate, along with our excellent and newly established British high commissioner in Lesotho. It was heartening to see the value placed on the Commonwealth by the Members of that Parliament and the tributes made, as they have been this morning, to Her Majesty the Queen and her commitment to the Commonwealth.
As other Members have referenced, the Commonwealth ranges in scale from countries the size of India and the geographic size of Canada to the very small, landlocked Lesotho. People in Lesotho are clear that their country is as much in the heart of Her Majesty the Queen as any of the other members of the Commonwealth, and her 70 years of service were celebrated as much in Maseru as they are being celebrated here in London and in the rest of the UK.
That visit—I know you are familiar with Commonwealth Parliamentary Association work, Mr Davies—was part of a series of contacts that have taken place between the CPA UK and the Lesotho Parliament to enable parliamentarians here and the CPA UK to support the Lesotho Parliament to develop and improve processes, and to learn from each other. The Lesotho Parliament is facing a situation that will be new to certainly all Conservative Members: there is a conflict within the ruling party and apparently a challenge to the Prime Minister, and there will potentially be a vote of confidence in Parliament. We were able to have a full discussion about how such matters are handled in our own parliamentary system.
I am being slightly flippant, but a serious discussion took place on how processes in that Parliament can evolve. The CPA UK has done a great deal of work that has fed into the National Reforms Authority, which has been established in Lesotho to try to take forward the omnibus Bill, which will reform that Parliament. That highlights the very important work that the CPA UK is doing not just in terms of what my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset does in this Parliament, but in working with other Parliaments—peer-to-peer working between Members of this Parliament and other Parliaments, and learning from each other. There are certainly things that we can learn from what is done in Lesotho and all the other members of the Commonwealth.
This is an appropriate time to pay tribute, as others have, to Jon Davies, the chief executive of the CPA UK, and his great team. We were accompanied on our visit to Lesotho and South Africa by Felicity Herrmann—she is responsible for many of the partnerships between this Parliament and other Parliaments—and others, such as Victoria Bower. They do an excellent job supporting members in their activities.
I led the delegation, and while we were there we met the Deputy Speaker of the South African Parliament. He made exactly the same points that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset made about the status of the CPA. I want to reinforce to the Minister that that is a really important issue, particularly for African members of the Commonwealth, which feel that the CPA’s charitable status demeans it in terms of the status that it should be afforded.
It was clear to me—I am sure the Minister and her colleagues are aware of this—that the position in South Africa vis-à-vis the UK is not exactly as we would want it to be. For example, the South African view of the Russian war with Ukraine is not the same as ours. It is very important that we have good working relations with South African politicians. South Africa is a hugely influential country, both in that part of the world and globally, and therefore we have to take it seriously when its Parliament says, “We don’t like the way in which the CPA is constituted.” I would be grateful if the Minister would take on board not only the point I am making, but the point made by my hon. Friend.
In his intervention, our hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) referred to the Commonwealth as a family, while the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) used this debate to raise his concern about faith issues. In my capacity as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV and AIDS, I say to the Minister that we need to use the fact that we are in the Commonwealth family to put pressure on other members of the Commonwealth and raise the issue of HIV/AIDS and their response to it. Some 60% of people living with HIV live in Commonwealth countries, while one in four men in Caribbean countries where homosexuality is criminalised has HIV. There is a great deal to be done.
Thanks to the advances in medicine over the past 40 years, today there is no reason why anyone with HIV should live a shorter life than someone without it. Crucially, we have the tools to radically slow new infections through education and prevention measures. However, the ability to prevent the spread of HIV is seriously compromised by punitive laws, discriminatory and brutal policing, and denial of access to justice for people with and at risk of acquiring HIV, which is fuelling the epidemic.
The issue at the centre of international efforts to deal with this pandemic is a crisis of human rights law in many Commonwealth countries, not the lack of medicines. There is now overwhelming evidence of the link between the criminalisation of homosexuality and the rate of HIV infection. To end new diagnoses of HIV by 2030, which this Government are committed to doing, the punitive laws against LGBT+ communities in the Commonwealth must be reformed. We must not be afraid to raise this issue with Commonwealth family members—being a family is about being able to raise difficult and challenging issues.
As we have heard this morning, the Commonwealth is a really positive institution. Countries such as Rwanda and Mozambique have joined it. However, we must be clear with our friends and family members that we want to see them reform their own procedures and customs. On that basis, we can look forward to a very positive future for the Commonwealth. I certainly want to do my bit as part of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in the UK. I encourage all my colleagues in this Parliament and the devolved Parliaments to take part—it is a really worthwhile opportunity.
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
Last but not least from the Back Benches, I call Maria Miller.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Mr Davies. It is absolutely right that we should hold this debate, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger), to mark Commonwealth day. Yesterday, in Westminster Abbey, we celebrated the rich diversity of the Commonwealth; today, we are hearing from right hon. and hon. Members from across the House about the important practical role that the Commonwealth plays. I declare a slight interest: I am a member of the CPA along with my hon. Friend, and a trustee of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) set out very clearly that one of the many values of the Commonwealth, and in particular the CPA, is in enabling Parliaments to talk to each other and work together to improve. I say “together” quite pointedly, because we have as much to learn as we have knowledge to impart, which is very important.
We live in an increasingly interconnected world. The situation in Ukraine shows that, as do the pandemic and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke) said, climate change. Whether it is equality, opportunity or religious freedom, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, so many issues are interconnected, and organisations such as the Commonwealth, but particularly the Commonwealth, can play such a powerful role.
The Commonwealth continues to resonate because it reflects that interconnectivity between 54 equal sovereign nations around the world—54 nations that share values that are fundamental to our way of life. We are free, democratic societies that want to live in peace and to prosper, and we take action to support each other in achieving those aims. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford mentioned the Commonwealth games. Nothing embodies the Commonwealth more than athletes from across the Commonwealth coming together, as they will in Birmingham in July this year, to demonstrate the purposefulness behind the Commonwealth organisation.
Too often, when we speak about the Commonwealth, we talk about economic ties. They are important—the Commonwealth provides significant opportunities for global Britain to trade more freely, and the Government have been very successful in putting their words into action with the free trade agreements with Australia, New Zealand and Singapore and the ongoing negotiations with India, and by looking to boost ties with countries such as Canada. That is very real and important. However, for me, it is the democratic ties that are so important, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale said.
We have opportunities to work together to improve our democracies. It has never been more important in this world for us to strengthen democracies, and for this Parliament, as well as Parliaments throughout the United Kingdom and the world, to understand their role and their obligation to strengthen democratic ties and, fundamentally, to strengthen our democracies.
Within the Commonwealth, it is astonishing to see the very practical ways that countries can work together at parliamentary and, indeed, Government level. We have 11 member states that are committed—as, I am proud to say, our own Government are—to 12 years of education for women. We have an alliance of 34 Commonwealth nations that have joined together to look at ways to reduce plastics in our oceans. Those are practical ways in which Commonwealth countries can come together on policy issues that really matter to the future of our world.
Like other Members who have spoken, I want to pay particular tribute to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. When I joined Parliament, albeit it a number of years ago, I had not heard of the CPA, but over the ensuing decade and a half I have got to know it very well. I am deeply impressed by the way in which the CPA, not just here in Westminster but across the Commonwealth, is so dedicated to improving our democracy and the way democracies work, and to enabling us to learn from each other, as we are in this week’s Westminster Seminar. I am privileged to be leading a session on Thursday on how we can be better scrutineers of Governments. Having been a Government Minister and the Chair of a Select Committee, I am looking forward not only to talking about my experiences, but to hearing from other Members about how they effect good scrutiny in their jurisdictions.
As well as the CPA, Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians has a crucial role in a world where still only one in every four parliamentarians elected is a woman. We have a long way to go. In our own Parliament, there are twice as many men elected to the House of Commons as women, so anybody who thinks we have got this right needs to read some of the evidence; we still have a long way to go ourselves. By working together, Commonwealth women parliamentarians can share experiences, perhaps hold each other to account, and scrutinise each other on how we are trying to increase women’s parliamentary representation.
Across the Commonwealth, we are seeing significant action being taken. In the CWP Pacific region, women parliamentarians are using New Zealand as a crucial regional hub to increase women’s representation, and are highlighting notable role models. The Canadian region is working with civil society on non-political training for potential women candidates at provincial and municipal levels to encourage more women to stand for Parliament. That is something that our Parliament should be seriously considering, as we still have a real shortfall in the number of women who want to stand for election.
Curiously, our own region is called the British Islands and Mediterranean region. Basically, that is the United Kingdom plus a number of other quite scattered jurisdictions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset set out. We are very focused on how we can use an important tool—gender-sensitive Parliament audits—to look at how good we are as a region at female representation. The research is clear that strong Parliaments are representative of their country’s people and, of course, more than 50% of people in our country are female. We can use gender-sensitive Parliament audits to identify how we can improve the way we encourage women to stand for election and retain them as elected representatives.
The States Assembly of Jersey implemented such an audit in 2018, and the Scottish Parliament has announced its plan to carry one out this year. I am hoping that we can do likewise here in the UK. I pay tribute to the work of the Women and Equalities Committee, which has looked at these issues in some detail. Indeed, four out of 13 Parliaments in our region have completed gender-sensitive Parliament audits.
I reiterate the comments made by my right hon. and hon. Friends about the status of the CPA. Its charitable status is becoming a real problem, and the Minister needs to take that on board. It is seen by many of our members as absolutely inappropriate. It does not sit well alongside the purpose of the organisation. The CPA needs to be recognised in the same way that so many other international organisations are recognised, and charitable status is not right. It would be such a shame, given the immense support that Ministers give to the CPA, if we could not resolve this rather administrative problem. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset, who is the chair of the CPA in the UK and, indeed, on a Commonwealth basis at the moment, for all the work he has done on that. A number of hon. and right hon. Members have paid tribute to the staff of the CPA, and I echo that.
In closing, I will make reference to a remark that Her Majesty made in her message on Commonwealth day. She said that Commonwealth countries should continue
“to be a point of connection, cooperation and friendship.”
Those words are absolutely right. For me, the Commonwealth is literally part of my family. Half of my family is Canadian. I am a proud mother of three Canadian children—joint citizens. It is those family ties, that connectivity, that binds us together—most importantly of all, under the leadership of Her Majesty.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Davies. I too am grateful to the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) not only for bringing forward the debate, but also for speaking with such great authority and knowledge on the Commonwealth.
As we have heard, the Commonwealth brings together 54 countries and 2.4 billion people around the world. It is a network connecting many of the fastest-growing nations on Earth, with strong ties in language, culture, values and mutual appreciation. Of course there are also the famous Commonwealth games, which is one of the few opportunities for athletes in Scotland to represent Scotland under the Saltire; I am sure that the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) enjoys that just as much as I do.
The Commonwealth also has profound origins in colonialism and can be seen as a direct descendant of the British empire. Many critics of the Commonwealth have described it as an institute for Britain to forget about the British empire’s genocides, exploitation, dominance and oppression of post-colonial countries.
Today, Commonwealth countries are still waiting for an official apology for atrocities committed by Britain during its colonial rule of those countries. For example, there was the massacre at Amritsar in northern India in 1919, when British troops fired on thousands of innocent and unarmed men, women and children during a peaceful protest. Over 100 years later, Britain has still refused to offer an official apology, having only acknowledged that the massacre took place. This Government should offer India and the people of Amritsar the closure they deserve by issuing a formal apology—something they have requested for years.
Numerous aspects of the Commonwealth demonstrate it is not the welcoming body that we all hoped and imagined it to be. For example, take the Windrush controversy of recent years. Hundreds of Commonwealth citizens, many of whom were part of the Windrush generation, were wrongly detained, deported and denied their legal rights. For years, Caribbean Heads of Government tried to discuss this issue with this Government, only to be rejected. It was only when coverage of these individuals’ stories began to break in mainstream media that the same UK Government decided on a U-turn and abandoned their “hostile” immigration environment for the Windrush generation.
The UK has held the position of Commonwealth chair-in-office since 2018 and will continue to do so until June this year. To be honest, the UK Government have so far missed an opportunity to implement fundamental cultural change. In March 2020, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) addressed this issue and stated that the UK Government must do more, considering the two years we have lost due to the pandemic, and that time was of the essence to make a positive impact. Such an impact has not been made. The Government need to do more to fully understand the Commonwealth and to ensure that its member states abide by the shared values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law that are enshrined in the Commonwealth’s charter.
The Commonwealth has an unimpressive record of not being sufficiently vocal in enforcing these core values, a situation which has become more challenging as the organisation has grown in size. Some members ignore international pressure to promote democracy and human rights. Also, the Commonwealth family took no action in January 2021 when Uganda’s President, Yoweri Museveni, clung to power after a deeply flawed election. Also, in 2013 President Mahinda Rajapaksa of Sri Lanka hosted a Commonwealth summit at a time when his Government stood accused of presiding over war crimes. In Nigeria, another Commonwealth member, there is a 10-year prison sentence for same-sex couples showing affection in public and a 14-year prison sentence for anybody having a gay marriage.
Also, the UK is withholding considerable aid funding from critical Commonwealth states, demonstrating that it is unconcerned about the Commonwealth. The UK Government have cut £4 billion from its foreign development budget for 2021-22 and according to Commonwealth Innovation Fund research the number of people living in extreme poverty in the Commonwealth will increase from 209 million in 2019 to 237 million by 2025.
Mrs Miller
The hon. Gentleman is making some important points about the Commonwealth, but will he not join me in paying tribute to the UK Government during their time as chair-in-office for supporting six Commonwealth countries to repeal and reform outdated legislation that discriminates against women, girls or LGBT communities? Is that not an opportunity that would not exist if the Commonwealth did not exist?
Steven Bonnar
I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention. She is absolutely right, and wherever we can pursue openness, democracy, fairness and equality throughout the world, we should take the opportunity to do so. I just feel that we have missed an opportunity to do that while we have been chair-in-office. Nevertheless, I thank her for her intervention.
In 2019, the UK provided approximately £1.8 billion in bilateral aid to Commonwealth countries, accounting for over 18% of total bilateral ODA. In 2021, the then Secretary of State for International Trade, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss)—who now serves as Foreign Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities—signed off £183 million of cuts to education, gender and equality spending in the UK aid budget.
Mr Liddell-Grainger
I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that I think there is a slight misunderstanding here. The Commonwealth does not deal with aid budgets; it does not deal with anything to do with Government, but Governments are part of what we do.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned certain countries that we work with. He is quite right that there are issues in those countries, but I was in Abuja in Nigeria recently, and we talked about that as a family. They understood that there is a great deal of concern around the world, as does the President of Uganda, whom I met. He realises that there is an issue. His deputy now is Rebecca Kadaga, who was formerly Speaker of the House out there, and she is pretty formidable. I say to the hon. Gentleman that he should please try not to confuse the two things. We do an enormous amount of work, but the air of publicity in certain countries goes against what we are trying to achieve.
Steven Bonnar
I take on board what the hon. Member is saying. I will take the opportunity to raise the injustices that we see across the world whenever I can, and if that includes Nigeria or any other Commonwealth country, I will continue to do so, but I thank him for his intervention.
The UK cannot claim to have a compassionate, co-operative and international outlook while simultaneously decreasing its contributions to lower-income countries, including those within the Commonwealth. We in the Scottish National party acknowledge that work needs to be done, and that only by understanding these little-said truths about the Commonwealth can we understand it in the present.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies. I thank the hon. Members for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) and for Stafford (Theo Clarke) for co-sponsoring this debate and bringing it before this House. Many right hon. and hon. Members from across the Chamber have made significant contributions on topics including promoting democracy across our Commonwealth nations, promoting religious freedoms, economic prosperity, preventing the spread of HIV, and connectivity between Commonwealth countries.
Commonwealth Day is an opportunity for us to reflect on the enduring bonds we have with our Commonwealth siblings. Nothing more effectively reminds us that we are part of a global Commonwealth family than contact with our constituents. Our diversity is our strength, and I think we in Lewisham appreciate that more than most. I have Guyanese Indian and Jamaican descent, and I am British born and bred, so I am a child of the Commonwealth through and through. On my trips to both those countries, I have gained such an appreciation of the culture and traditions that have developed over centuries from people mixing together. In Guyana, I love the pepperpot and cook-up rice, just as in Jamaica I love the saltfish and ackee with green bananas. I have been to many Commonwealth countries so far in my life—The Gambia, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, Mauritius and Malta—and hope to visit many more.
We cannot take our Commonwealth family ties for granted: the strong relationship we have with each other must be constantly nurtured. The institutions of the Commonwealth help us to do just that, and find new ways to partner and co-operate to solve our common challenges. Today, we look forward to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Rwanda this June. As we know, the timetable was delayed by the pandemic; the UK has now held the chair for four years, and I am sure the Minister will set out what the Government see as the achievements of our time as chair.
I also want to hear about the engagement that has been happening in preparation for June. One of the ways in which the Commonwealth brings people together is through sport, and we look forward to the 22nd Commonwealth games in Birmingham later this year, which will provide another welcome opportunity to renew and deepen our connections. I would like to take this opportunity to celebrate the achievements of Birmingham as it prepares to host the games.
The challenges we face are daunting, but we are stronger together than apart. Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine has far-reaching impacts. We must be clear that the Russian invasion is a violation of the Commonwealth values and principles set out repeatedly in declarations from Singapore, Goa, Harare and Coolum. Does the Government intend to facilitate any discussion among Commonwealth partners?
As Commonwealth members, we believe in the notions of peace and security, and the international rule of law. Both of those principles have been shattered by the Russian invasion. The Kenyan ambassador to the United Nations, Martin Kimani, said it best:
“We must complete our recovery from the embers of dead empires in a way that does not plunge us back into new forms of domination and oppression.”
I could not agree more. Those words are another example of how we have so much to learn from the experiences and histories shared across our Commonwealth partners. I would like to again put on the record Labour’s support for improvements to the curriculum so that a broader range of perspectives can be fully understood.
The Russian invasion will also have economic implications across the world, including for many Commonwealth countries. Labour urges the Government to publish assessments of the impact of the food and energy price rises on developing countries, particularly the least developed states. I urge the Government to restore funding to 0.7%, otherwise the humanitarian money that is rightly being devoted to Ukraine will come at the expense of others. That will often mean Commonwealth countries whose needs are also great.
Much of the UK’s time as chair-in-office of the Commonwealth has been dominated by the covid-19 pandemic. I ask the Minister to give an update on the number of vaccinations delivered into arms as a result of UK donations. I also ask the Minister to say something about any progress that has been made on delivering those doses earlier and more predictably, because a dose that arrives just weeks before it goes out of date is not really a donation at all—it is closer to the dumping of medical waste. Quite frankly, that is an insult.
To recover from the pandemic, we need education systems to bounce back quickly and effectively. In many Commonwealth countries, as in the UK, schools were shut, in some cases for almost two years. That can have a massively greater impact on girls, particularly in parts of the Commonwealth affected by poverty. Children who are not in school are vulnerable to child labour and child marriage.
Analysis of the 2020 and 2021 aid budget cuts suggests that together they would result in 700,000 girls losing support from education programmes. The leaked equalities impact assessment last week showed a reduction of 75% for programmes to tackle violence against women and girls, and up to 80% for some sexual and reproductive health programmes. The focus of this year’s Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Rwanda will be empowering young people through technology. There are many strong UK companies and NGOs which could contribute expertise, so I hope that the Minister will say more about what the Government will be doing.
The benefits of an inclusive recovery from covid are huge. Girls and boys who can achieve their potential will build more secure societies and expand opportunities for trade and investment. Labour is watching closely to see how the Government live up to their promise to fully restore funding for women and girls, and I hope that the Minister will say more about that today.
Democracy and inclusive governance are core Commonwealth values. This year will see elections in many Commonwealth countries, including Malta, The Gambia, Papua New Guinea, Australia, Kenya, Lesotho, and Fiji. We look forward to being able to celebrate the outcomes of free, fair, and peaceful elections with all of those Commonwealth siblings in the months to come.
We must do everything we can to support those values through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and Commonwealth Foundation, and through direct diplomacy by the Government. However, the funding for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy remains in doubt. The Government must continue to support its work.
The protection of human rights is another Commonwealth principle, and we must continue to raise issues affecting marginalised people across our sibling countries. As we know, the colonial legacy includes laws targeting LGBT+ people, and all those standing up against that legacy today must have our full support. Likewise, we must work together to end violence against religious and ethnic minorities, and ensure that journalists and political activists can operate freely in every Commonwealth country, including that of the incoming chair-in-office. I hope that the Government will set out their intentions to do that in their response.
Having saved the best until last, the Commonwealth must come together to tackle the climate emergency. There is surely an opportunity in Kigali to set the stage for COP27 in Egypt and to announce continued deepening of shared Commonwealth programming. What are the Government doing to engage with Commonwealth states in June on the acute needs that many have on climate financing and on adaptation, mitigation, and loss and damage funds?
The members of our Commonwealth family are bound together by so much: our histories, our common values, our endeavours and our shared challenges. The Commonwealth can be a deepening partnership of equals that helps our world to flourish all the more. Labour joins in the celebration of Commonwealth Day, and I with it, as the Commonwealth is special to me. We encourage the Government to set out the steps they will take to make the promise of the Commonwealth a reality.
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
To respond to all those points, I call the Minister, Amanda Milling.
The Minister for Asia and the Middle East (Amanda Milling)
Thank you, Mr Davies. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, although I think I might struggle to answer every single point that has been raised in the debate. I have been furiously writing notes, and I will do what I can.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) for securing the debate, which is timely and which gives us an opportunity to mark and to celebrate Commonwealth Day, and I commend him on his tireless work and support for the Commonwealth as chair of the CPA. We deeply appreciate the important work done by the CPA and its UK branch.
I welcome the commitment to the Commonwealth shown by Members across the Chamber, and I will do my best to deal with the points they have made, but I want to begin by mentioning one colleague who has been sorely missed during today’s debate: our dear friend, Sir David Amess. Sir David was a passionate advocate for the Commonwealth, and he took part in last year’s debate with his customary good humour, insight and conviction.
As Minister for Asia, I had the privilege of working with Sir David, and have travelled to a number of Commonwealth countries. Most recently, I visited Singapore, where I advanced our partnership to create a safer, more prosperous region. Each year, Commonwealth Day is an occasion on which to celebrate our connections and the diversity of our 54 nations. The Commonwealth makes up a third of the world’s population, spanning every continent and ocean, and every stage of development. It is right that we use Commonwealth week to reflect on our shared values of freedom, peace and democracy as enshrined in the Commonwealth charter. That is a key theme that has come through all the contributions this morning, and the charter sets out the commitments of each member state to develop as a free and democratic society, and to promote peace and prosperity.
The value of those principles has been highlighted over the past few weeks, and they are completely at odds with Putin’s unprovoked and illegal invasion of Ukraine. We will continue to work with our Commonwealth and international partners to ensure that there is strong political, humanitarian, defence and economic support for Ukraine.
This year, we celebrate the platinum jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen to mark her 70 years as monarch and 70 years as Head of the Commonwealth. Yesterday, the Prime Minister, Lord Ahmad, who is Minister for the Commonwealth, and members of the royal family were joined by Commonwealth representatives at Westminster Abbey for a service that paid tribute to Her Majesty for her tireless dedication to the Commonwealth. This summer, at the Commonwealth games in Birmingham, all 72 nations and territories of the Commonwealth will come together in the spirit of friendly competition. I am delighted that my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke), is in the Chamber today. The mountain biking event will be held in my constituency —I think the site is on the border of our constituencies, to be fair—and I am thrilled that we are hosting that event. I hope that Members will come to visit Cannock Chase, which is a beautiful part of the world.
In June, Commonwealth leaders will meet in Kigali for the first full in-person gathering of Heads of Government since the 2018 London meeting, but let us look at the past four years that we have been chair-in-office. We have worked hard to deliver the commitments made in London to build a fairer, more sustainable, more secure and more prosperous future for the 2.5 billion people of the Commonwealth. With our Commonwealth partners, we have built a fairer future. We have honoured our pledge to support women’s empowerment through trade. A number of Members raised the topic of women and girls. The SheTrades Commonwealth programme, which supports female entrepreneurs, has already helped generate sales of more than £32 million for women-owned businesses in Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana and Bangladesh. We work with national human rights institutions across the Commonwealth to strengthen human rights, and we have ensured that more girls across the Commonwealth have access to education.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) mentioned LGBT rights. We have delivered programmes worth more than £11 million to support the promotion and protection of LGBT rights across the Commonwealth. We look forward to welcoming Commonwealth partners to the “Safe To Be Me” conference that we will host later this year.
With our Commonwealth partners, we have built a more sustainable future. The Government are committed to double our international climate finance to £11.6 billion by March 2026. Since 2018, we have co-founded the Commonwealth Climate Finance Access Hub, which has mobilised more than $45 million to support climate-vulnerable Commonwealth countries. Colleagues raised the issue of climate. Through the Commonwealth marine economies programme, we have helped 17 small island developing states to build sustainable marine economies that are more resilient to climate change.
With our Commonwealth partners, we have built a more secure future. We work with all Commonwealth countries to strengthen their cyber-security. We continue to support the excellent work that the UK Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is doing in strengthening governance, parliamentary oversight and accountability across the Commonwealth. We welcome the work it is doing this year on climate change, women, online harms and modern slavery.
Finally, with our Commonwealth partners, we have been working for a more prosperous future. We have a network of Commonwealth trade envoys—it is good to see some here today—in countries such as South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana, Uganda and Rwanda. We have funded programmes to liberalise global trade. We have made rapid progress to secure trade agreements with 33 Commonwealth countries. We recently signed two historic trade deals, with Australia in December and New Zealand last month. This year we will launch a new developing countries trading scheme, which will help countries reduce poverty through trade.
Hon. Friends mentioned the legal status of the CPA. I know that Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, the Minister for the Commonwealth, wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset earlier this month, and I believe further conversations are ongoing with officials. We hope to find a legal route that will give the CPA the recognition it seeks. We have been proud to work with the CPA UK across a number of projects during our chair-in-office, which have sought to strengthen democracy, oversight and accountability throughout the Commonwealth, and we value that partnership. The CPA UK has put forward project proposals for the next financial year, and we are considering those as part of our business planning process.
I might have a couple of minutes to pick up on another couple of points.
Jim Shannon
I asked the Minister about the persecution of Christians and how they are focused on in the Commonwealth. I also asked about the Republic of Ireland. Will the Minister comment, if she is able to?
Amanda Milling
I was just coming to countries re-joining the Commonwealth. The UK is open to considering new applications for membership on their merits. The interest of potential new members is a sign of the Commonwealth’s vitality. Decisions on membership are made by consensus of all member states. I believe that some of the countries mentioned earlier were members in the past. Whether they want to re-join is up to them, but as I say it is by consensus of member states.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is a passionate champion of freedom of religion or belief, which is established in the Commonwealth charter. We would like Commonwealth leaders to recommit to promoting and protecting those freedoms at CHOGM. He will be aware that the Prime Minister appointed my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) as his special envoy, and will host an international summit in July. We continue to raise human rights with countries wherever concerns exist. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, my next-door neighbour, mentioned the Queen’s Commonwealth Canopy. We hope that all 54 member states will have committed to participate by the time of CHOGM in June.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale mentioned HIV and AIDS. I know that he is a passionate champion of this issue. The UK’s Global Fund and the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation are a really important way of supporting international progress on HIV and AIDS. There is strong engagement across Africa, including in many Commonwealth nations, as this issue is exceptionally important. We have a global AIDS strategy, which focuses on addressing those inequalities.
I think I have about one more minute before I must let my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset wind up. I am sorry that I have not been able to cover all the points made, but we have been able to get a snapshot of our co-operation with the Commonwealth and Commonwealth countries. Those partnerships and today’s debate demonstrate how the Commonwealth brings great benefits to diverse communities across the globe. As we hand over the baton of chair- in-office to Rwanda in June, our commitment to the Commonwealth and the shared values of the Commonwealth charter will not dim. The pandemic, the growing impacts of climate change and the rise in global prices make these testing times for all members of the Commonwealth, but as Her Majesty said in her Commonwealth Day message yesterday, we can
“draw strength and inspiration from what we share, as we work together towards a healthy, sustainable and prosperous future for all.”
Mr Liddell-Grainger
I thank the Minister and all Members who have taken part in the debate. I am grateful for everybody’s insight and to the Minister for being able to take on the points that have been raised. I know that the point about the CPA’s status will be taken on board. The Commonwealth has achieved so many of the aims that it set out to. I did not mention this, but I am grateful for the funding that we get from the FCDO. I was not going to bring up our next funding bid, but I thank the Minister for doing so. I think she knows—certainly colleagues do—that every penny that we get from the FCDO is spent on programmes, and we do it well. The staff of the CPA UK is only 30. The staff of the CPA internationally is only 20. That a whole organisation can be run on such small numbers is phenomenal; they are a tremendous team.
We have praised Her Majesty for her incredible leadership over the last 70 years. That shows that one person can make a massive difference, and does so all the time. I say gently to the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar), that any country can leave the Commonwealth. It is a club. People want to be part of the Commonwealth because it gives us a shared history, good or bad. It shows that by working together we can change things. It is not always easy; it can be difficult, and I take that on the chin, but our history is one of the things that binds us. Common adversity can bring commonality. That is what has bound us together. Dealing with colleagues from around the world—it is lovely to hear about people’s heritages—shows that that is what makes this incredible organisation work so well. One can go anywhere in the world and meet people who say, “I’ve got a cousin”—or an aunt or whatever—“in the United Kingdom,” and that is just wonderful.
We do this every year. We do it because it matters to an enormous organisation that has an enormous heart. We are a democratically led organisation, and we fight for people and democracy.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Commonwealth Day.
Blackpool Airport and Levelling Up
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
I will call Scott Benton to move the motion. I will then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Blackpool airport and the role of commercial passenger flights in levelling up.
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. The recent levelling-up White Paper rightly identified the areas that need to be addressed if we are to transform the UK and bring prosperity to left-behind regions. The UK Government have set themselves 12 national missions that they must achieve if this country is to level up. There are two areas, in particular, that I believe are pertinent to regional airports, including Blackpool, and I will demonstrate how they can play an important role in supporting the Government’s broader aims.
The Government’s first emphasis is on the restoration of pride of place. Regional airports are often important symbols of pride for local residents, offering a unique link to a town’s history and representing modernity and wealth. For example, on the grounds that are now Blackpool airport, Squires Gate hosted the UK’s first official aviation meeting in 1909, when 200,000 people gathered to watch Henri Farman set the first official British flight record of 47 miles. That would be the start of Blackpool’s long and proud aviation history, with a fully fledged aerodrome opened in 1931, offering passenger flights to the Isle of Man.
During the second world war, RAF Squires Gate was established as a training wing for the No. 3 School of General Reconnaissance, and over 3,000 Wellington bombers were constructed next to the airport, with the factory buildings still in existence. This history is celebrated in Blackpool and continues today, with a Spitfire visitor centre, our brilliant annual air show, and the development of military aircraft at nearby BAE Systems in Walton. I know how important the airport is to my constituents and those of my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). In 2019, I started a petition urging the local council to restore commercial passenger flights, and I was delighted by the brilliant response it received, with over 8,000 local people signing it.
The second area I want to highlight in the case for levelling up is improving connectivity and infrastructure. The levelling-up White Paper makes clear the importance of connectivity and better transport links across the regions of the UK. Regional airports offer quick and easy connections, often at a fraction of the time and cost of rail travel.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising the important issue of Blackpool airport—a real jewel in the Fylde crown. Does he agree that one challenge the airport faces is very high fixed costs for air traffic control, fire brigades and security, which larger airports do not face? Does he also agree that the Government need to look again at repeating the airfield fund that a certain previous aviation Minister launched on his last day in the job? That would match funding for investment in meeting these fixed costs.
Scott Benton
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for his intervention. He has been a brilliant friend and advocate of Blackpool airport over many years, and during his work as aviation Minister. From speaking to him in the past, I know that a number of the things he was looking at while in post could support regional airports and help Blackpool to grow, benefiting the local economies of both our constituencies. I know he will be a brilliant advocate and supporter of this campaign going forward.
Regional airports offer quick and easy connections, often at a fraction of the time and cost of rail travel. They are also able to connect us to the furthest corners of our United Kingdom.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, and it is music to my ears. As the Minister is aware, we have had a campaign in the far north of Scotland to do similar work for Wick airport. We have a destination—Aberdeen—which is great, and is a step in the right direction, but does the hon. Member agree that having a choice of destinations helps? In the case of Wick, we are seeking to get Edinburgh or Glasgow included as destinations.
Scott Benton
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He makes a good point. He will know about the importance of public service obligations, especially in the regional context of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales and the work we do in England to match the PSO offers in the devolved Administrations. He will no doubt be championing that for his own constituency.
The Union connectivity review emphasised the need for Government to support journeys too long to be reasonably taken by road or rail. That is especially significant in the case of the devolved Administrations and other parts of our United Kingdom, all of which would benefit hugely from greater links between them. More practically, regional airports offer economic opportunities, increased tourism, better business connections and more investment opportunities, and they provide the chance for unique service delivery, as my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, alluded to with Blackpool airport.
Where does Blackpool airport fit in the levelling-up agenda, and what can the Government do to support it? As I mentioned, Blackpool airport has been in operation since the 1930s and operated commercial flights through the 20th century. However, the airport really took off—pardon the pun—in the early 2000s, with low-cost airlines such as Jet2 providing routes to international destinations, including Spain and Portugal, and smaller carriers, for example Citywing and Flybe, providing a strong regional network to destinations such as Belfast, Aberdeen and Southampton.
Unfortunately, following the financial crisis of 2007, passenger numbers began to fall and the operator of the airport, Balfour Beatty, ran into financial difficulty. Despite a number of routes still being well attended and the airport being used by over 200,000 passengers per year, in 2014 Balfour Beatty decided to put the airport up for sale. Sadly, a buyer could not be found and a subsidiary of Balfour Beatty purchased the airport and reduced operations, ultimately leading to the end of commercial passenger flights.
During this time, a decision was taken to demolish the former passenger terminal, despite protests from local residents. In 2017, Blackpool Council had to purchase the airport to save it from being permanently closed and demolished and to secure its long-term future as part of Blackpool Airport enterprise zone. That allowed for essential infrastructure to be maintained and investment plans to be explored.
Sadly, following my petition to ensure that commercial passenger flights were restored, the Labour council voted against the idea, citing the costs of bringing the airport up to scratch. While I appreciate the large capital cost of modernising the airport infrastructure, there have already been positive movements by the Government to support regional aviation, making investment more appealing. The cut to air passenger duty in last year’s Budget has provided a brilliant opportunity for domestic flights from small airports such as Blackpool. The Government have effectively halved the amount of tax paid on domestic return journeys, allowing people to travel for less. That is much fairer than the previous system, which would charge those travelling domestically more than those flying internationally, despite travelling a much shorter distance and contributing less carbon to the environment. The cut could prove especially beneficial as more people choose staycations rather than holidays abroad following the pandemic.
In the case of Blackpool, our resort is already a great destination for tourists, and exciting future developments assisted by Government regeneration funding will mean that there will soon be even more attractions to offer to visitors. That point has been echoed by many of the tourism and leisure businesses in my constituency. For example, Amanda Thompson OBE, managing director of Blackpool Leisure Beach, has stated:
“Blackpool Airport was a wonderful asset for the town and direct flights to and from London and various European destinations show how important it is to have connectivity to the city and Europe. The resort needs to establish inbound tourism from Europe...as well as from…London—this is needed to encourage investment within the resort and the Airport can help to deliver this.”
The Union connectivity review has provided great insight into how to use regional airports to achieve the Government’s aim to improve transport connectivity and enhance quality of life and economic opportunity across the UK. The report made a number of suggestions that would greatly boost the case for restoring passenger flights to Blackpool airport and increasing the role of regional airports more broadly. Alongside the cut in APD for domestic flights, the report also recommended re-examining the role of public service obligation routes and the way in which they operate.
Currently, PSO routes are eligible for support only if they run to and from London and are exclusively operated by one airline. That has limited their use and has meant that such routes mostly exist outside of England, where devolved Administrations have stepped in. The report recommended liberalising the process to allow PSOs to operate between regions. It also recommended selecting a number of routes that would not have been previously operated and removing APD on those altogether. That would not result in a loss of revenue for the Government as, without the reforms, those journeys would not previously have been made at all. If the reforms were to be adopted, they would offer a great opportunity for Blackpool to offer flights to the Isle of Man, Belfast and possibly even London or Glasgow. Blackpool’s location makes it ideal to serve those routes. I hope the Government will seriously consider that recommendation and explore the policy further in the coming months.
These are positive steps and if properly pursued would allow Blackpool and other regional airports to play a vital part in UK connectivity and levelling up. However, the barrier to Blackpool and many other regional airports in taking advantage of such developments is the need for capital investment. Although the Treasury provides many funding pots, particularly for infrastructure projects, one area not currently covered by any schemes is regional airports. That makes it very difficult for airports such as Blackpool to get off the ground, with local government administrations often unable, or in Blackpool’s case unwilling, to invest sufficient time and money in large projects.
A bespoke scheme to provide capital investment would be very welcome and would allow regional airports to modernise, invest in green technologies and take the pressure away from key hub airports. As there are only 26 regional airports, the fund could be relatively small and could deliver significant improvements quickly, certainly in the case of Blackpool.
I want to address the concerns regarding the environmental impact of flying, especially in the context of the Government’s commitments at COP26. First, it is worth noting that domestic air travel makes up only 1.2% of total domestic transport emissions—a tiny fraction compared with cars, HGVs or trains. I am concerned that in reading reports like the Union connectivity review we are not looking to the future and considering upcoming technology. I was also concerned to see the media backlash following the cut to APD and the calls from newspapers such as The Guardian to ban domestic air travel altogether. Many environmental activists seem content to return to the stone age rather than innovating to maintain our wonderful way of life. For example, the Danish and Swedish Governments are both working with their aviation sectors to make domestic air travel fossil fuel-free by 2030. That is an ambitious target, but we must surely try to improve aviation rather than abandon it altogether.
I welcome the Department for Transport’s jet zero strategy consultation and hope it will lead to constructive discussions with the aviation industry. We are now seeing the development of electric and hydrogen-powered aircraft both in the UK and around the world, and we have already seen low-carbon aircraft becoming more popular. For the technology to continue to develop and become widespread, it will have to be economically viable, and that will mean starting small. Domestic flights with their short airtime and lighter-weight aircraft would provide companies investing in low-carbon solutions with a perfect market for the technology to grow and mature.
I hope that the Government will look carefully at the role of regional airports—Blackpool in particular—in meeting their aims of levelling up, improving connectivity and moving towards net zero. It would be disappointing if, when so many opportunities are being created for regional airports and domestic flying, Blackpool with its long history of aviation and its great location were unable to benefit, particularly from the cut to APD, which could be tremendous for Blackpool’s tourism industry.
I also hope that the Government will look carefully at the reforms suggested in the Union connectivity report, especially the case for the expansion of PSO routes. Blackpool would be ideally suited for connecting to the Isle of Man and Belfast in particular.
Lastly, I hope that the Government will consider the creation of a bespoke funding pot or other targeted support to ensure that regional airports get the support they need to modernise, invest in those green technologies and take the pressure off our busy hub airports.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Davies. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) for securing this critically important debate, touching as it does not just on Blackpool, which is of such huge significance to his constituents and to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), but to wider regional aviation. Many of the issues on which we have touched today apply to many Members throughout the United Kingdom. I know that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), with his advocacy for Wick airport, will share in many of those points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South is a hugely powerful advocate for this sector and for his area and I commend him for his energy, enthusiasm and vision for Blackpool airport and for the wider regional airport ecosystem. He has made a number of points to me throughout his time here, many of which the Government are considering. I hope to address some of those points during this debate.
I was particularly struck during my hon. Friend’s speech by the history of Blackpool airport—everything from Henri Farman in 1909, with his record, through to Vickers Wellingtons during the war, and today’s modern aircraft and aerospace technology at Warton nearby. I look forward to hearing more about that. We touched on it when we met recently and I look forward to seeing more when I visit this Friday. The importance of Blackpool airport to his area has been made vividly clear during this debate. The 8,000 signatures to his petition also show how important it is to his constituents.
I will touch on as many points as I can in the time that I have, particularly those relating to Blackpool and wider regional aviation. If we look at the issue as a whole, the UK is lucky to have one of the best-connected, best-value, safest, most innovative aircraft industries in the world—aircraft and aviation. It creates jobs, encourages the economy to grow, connects the United Kingdom and all of us with the wider world. It consolidates and grows our position as a dynamic trading nation.
Regional airports link us and serve our local communities, as we have heard vividly today. They support thousands of jobs in the regions and act as a gateway to international opportunities and economic growth. They foster, never let us forget, social and family ties and strengthen the bonds between us.
The figure that is perhaps most vivid is that before the pandemic, the aviation sector directly contributed at least £22 billion to the UK’s GDP, supporting approximately half a million jobs. It is vital that, as we build out from the pandemic, the aviation sector is a key part of that. As far as this Government are concerned, it will be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South rightly mentioned air passenger duty. That is part of our plans to boost regional connectivity and why, as he mentioned, the Treasury announced in the recent Budget a package of APD reforms to bolster air connectivity within the Union. That is a new reduced domestic band to support precisely the regional connectivity that he rightly pays tribute to, aligned with an ultra-long-haul additional band to ensure that our overall policy aligns with our environmental objectives. The reforms will take effect from 1 April 2023. That will be part of a package that aims to assist our domestic and international connectivity in the aviation world as we build out of the pandemic.
It is no exaggeration to say that levelling up is a key part of the Government’s agenda and a key part of what aviation can enable. We must have our local communities and businesses connected not just with London but, as the hon. Gentleman quite rightly points out, with other parts of the UK, and level up the regions and build a truly global Britain. Our objective is to ensure that all nations and regions of the UK have the domestic and international air transport connections that they rely on, while ensuring that we meet our net-zero commitments. Maintaining the national network of aerodromes and airports is the foundation of the success of the wider UK aviation sector, be that general, business or commercial aviation.
We have touched upon Union connectivity. In November 2021, Sir Peter Hendy published his independent Union connectivity review. As the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross has pointed out, I know the importance of Wick to him and to the wider UK; that has been emphasised during this debate. For Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and all parts of England, we will be looking to improve access to opportunities and everyday connections across the United Kingdom.
Jamie Stone
I am grateful for the Minister’s kind comments. Does he agree that the operation of Wick airport is crucial to our endeavours, with Britain’s first vertical space launch in Sutherland?
Robert Courts
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He draws attention to some of the future opportunities that regional aviation can sponsor. We have the space launch in his part of Scotland, with Wick enabling that, and a similar story in Newquay, at the other end of the United Kingdom. We see there vividly what regional aviation can bring to communities, wherever they happen to be. That is why the Government place so much importance on regional aviation. I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point so clear.
The review shows the importance of airports and air connectivity, for all the reasons that we have touched upon. It also mentions the benefits of jobs, trade, investments and the strengthening of social ties. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South rightly draws attention to PSOs. We currently jointly fund those from Londonderry, Newquay and Dundee into London and that protects air connectivity from some of the more peripheral areas of our UK. As we consider our response to the Union connectivity review, we will explore what further opportunities there are to use PSO policy to support regional connectivity and the levelling- up agenda. We will continue to consider Sir Peter’s recommendations and we look to respond later this year.
As part of the rebuilding out of covid, we are looking to produce a strategy on the future of aviation in the UK. That will explore the sector’s return to growth. It will explore many of the issues that we have touched on in this debate and some that we have not had a chance to mention—not only the return to growth, but workforce and skills, aviation noise, innovation, regulation, consumer issues and, critically, regional connectivity, alongside climate change and decarbonisation and the critical role that aviation plays in retaining that global reach.
The hon. Member for Blackpool South is quite right. When we talk about decarbonisation, regional aviation will be a key testbed and he is right to draw attention to that. Indeed, on that, the consultation on jet zero—as we call it—was published in July 2021. While press headlines often tend to focus on transatlantic aviation, regional aviation is key to that as well. The consultation outlines our vision for the aviation sector and its decarbonisation. We are looking to publish that final strategy later this year.
One of our key proposals included a sustainable aviation fuels mandate consultation, which sets out our level of ambition for future uptake. We have published a summary of the responses that have come in already and we aim to confirm a mandate, targets, timescales and the design following a second consultation later this year.
The Government continue to support progress towards low and zero-emission aircraft technology, which includes some of the technology that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South has been referring to, through the Aerospace Technology Institute programme, providing £1.95 billion of funding towards aerospace research.
I will quote something that my hon. Friend said, because I wholeheartedly agree with it. He said that we should innovate to maintain our wonderful way of life. He is absolutely right and I am keen to emphasise that flying is not the problem; aviation emissions are the problem and it is those emissions that we have to tackle. We are tackling them, and by doing so we will create guilt-free flying.
On Blackpool airport and some of the work that has been going on with it, we published a general aviation road map in April 2021, which set out the Government’s vision, strategic priorities and forward programme of work to support the general aviation sector. As part of that, the Government delivered the Airfield Development Advisory Fund to support local airfields and associated GA businesses to grow, thrive and upskill. I am delighted that Blackpool airport has made use of that consultancy service. The ADAF provided technical support on the potential relocation of the air traffic control C tower to a new location, as well as advising on the adoption of new air traffic control technology named virtual remote towers.
In addition, in October 2020 the Department provided funding to establish the Civil Aviation Authority’s Airfield Advisory Team, to provide complementary support and technical aviation advice to GA aerodromes on a range of matters. The AAT is an independent non-regulatory advisory team within the CAA, which also liaises with organisations to ensure that the economic, educational and community benefits of GA are understood, so that local planning authorities can make informed decisions. I encourage Blackpool airport to draw on that valuable service and support to help it advance its operations.
As I touched on at the start of my remarks, the UK has a world-leading, competitive commercial aviation sector, with airports and airlines operating and investing to attract passengers and respond to demand. Airports have a key role to play as part of that commercial sector; as I have said, they boost global connectivity and levelling up in the UK. Where opportunities for growth exist, it is key that local partners can come together with industry to develop the business case for new commercial flights.
I wholeheartedly commend and pay tribute to the energy and expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South on this issue. I can see how passionately he cares. He has a key role, which I can see he is doing already, in convening some of those local partners. He has mentioned his local authority and I encourage it to engage energetically with him to explore the options that may exist. He will also be able to bring together local enterprise partnerships, local businesses and other stakeholders to work together as a holistic whole, to establish the case for commercial flights and then to work with airline partners to create new connections for the communities. He mentioned the connections that existed in the past; hopefully, by bringing all those local partners together, he can build the case for those connections to exist again in the future.
We know that this process can work and I have given the example of Teesside International airport. This work happened there, with local authorities, the Mayor and local businesses coming together with airline partners to identify the need for new connections and then to develop the business case for them. Thanks to that effort, for the first time in over a decade Teesside International airport has direct flights to Heathrow. Also, just last month the combined authority and the local Mayor announced the creation of a new business park at the airport, which is expected to create up to 4,400 jobs when fully operational. That is an example of what can be done with leadership like that provided by my hon. Friend; we can look for such progress at Blackpool airport as well.
In the minute or so that I have left, I will say a little about diversification. I am conscious that Blackpool is already a highly diversified airport, which means that we have the option for highly skilled, dynamic and innovative businesses to grow and flourish—for manufacturing and the maintenance of aircraft; aviation services; and for research and innovation. That means that the wider economic benefits of airports and aerodromes can be fed through to the entire wider community, which of course increases the financial viability of those airports and aerodromes, and helps them thrive. Additional functions include pilot training. Also, as my hon. Friend said, there is the example of Newquay airport, which will also host a spaceport. That is a particular example of innovation, but there are other examples of such innovation.
Regional airports and regional connectivity are utterly critical to the UK’s aviation sector because they unlock investment, jobs and trade across the country. I am in no doubt of the critical importance of airports such as Blackpool airport, which is why I look forward to visiting it on Friday and to hearing more from my hon. Friend and his campaign.
Question put and agreed to.
Private Rented Sector Housing
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered private rented sector housing.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Gary. I thank Members for attending this debate today and for what I know will be powerful contributions. I start by paying tribute to my constituents in Liverpool, West Derby, who are the innocent victims of this country’s current housing system. I also want to thank ACORN, the Vauxhall law centre, Generation Rent, Shelter, the Daily Mirror and the many other organisations for their campaigns to get the changes we need.
For millions, the current system in the private rented sector is failing to provide homes that are safe, secure and affordable for everyone. Mindful of this House’s sub judice rules, I am unable to go into the details of some of the appalling cases that my constituents have written to me about. However, issues raised with me by private renters include: constituents with health conditions such as asthma whose landlords have left them in damp properties with no gas supply in the middle of winter; constituents, including children, who have been hospitalised and suffered serious health impacts as the result of disrepair in their homes; and families living in fear of bailiffs, who were served a section 21 eviction notice by the landlord after complaining about terrible disrepair and conditions. My constituent told me:
“Section 21 takes the humanity out of the situation and that’s precisely the problem. We are human and lives are being carelessly destroyed!”
Other constituents who have contacted me wanted the Government to take urgent action so that nobody in future has to go through the same horrific experiences. Nationally, the private rented sector includes some of the oldest stock in England; it remains the tenure with the lowest standards, based on the Government’s decent homes standard. The latest English housing survey found that one in five homes in the private rented sector is classed as non-decent, and 12% have a category 1 hazard for which the most serious harm outcome is identified, for example, as death, permanent paralysis, permanent loss of consciousness, loss of a limb or serious fractures.
Does the Minister know how many serious injuries and deaths have resulted from making people live in such appalling accommodation? Shamefully, we have a system that means a private renter has more than a one in 10 chance of living in a home that could kill or seriously harm them or their children. Let that fact sink in—how can this be allowed to continue?
Private rented sector homes also have the worst energy standards on average. That means private renters will have to pay significantly more in heating bills because of poor insulation, inefficient heating systems or lack of double glazing. With the cost of living crisis starting to bite and energy prices set to soar, private renters really are in a precarious situation. Added to that, it seems that complaining puts them on a fast track to eviction. Research from Citizens Advice shows that those complaining to their local authority about disrepair were 46% more likely to get a section 21 from the landlord. Section 21—the fast track to eviction—must be scrapped.
I recently spoke to Professor Ian Sinha, a consultant respiratory paediatrician at the fantastic Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in my constituency, about the health impacts of poor housing conditions. Ian told me:
“The consequences of poor quality housing can be fatal for children: the National Child Mortality Database identified poor housing as one of the top risk factors associated with the inequalities that result in children's deaths....If babies and children breathe air rife with fungus, toxins, and dust, in overcrowded and cold homes, their lungs develop abnormally. Even though we focus on the shortterm effects, the problems they face in adulthood are even more stark—the poorest children are 5 times more likely to develop adult diseases like COPD, and chronic illnesses such as this lead to the poorest adults dying two decades earlier than the richest ones in Liverpool and many other cities...Poor housing can result in 20 years being taken away from your life...There is a window of opportunity for children to develop and grow—and the state of housing in which millions of children are forced to live is holding them back...That’s why good housing for all should be the very essence of any levelling up agenda otherwise it’s a vacuous nonsense.”
Professor Sinha continued:
“Parents are gaslighted at every opportunity—landlords deny pest problems—but mothers of premature babies tell us they know there are rats in the house because they see bite marks in their baby’s oxygen tubing; mothers tell us that when they reach for the cereal there are rodent faeces in them; mothers tell us that their toddlers are afraid to go in rooms because they see mice looking at them through the gaps in the floorboards that still haven’t been fixed. While parents are told that damp isn’t an issue, they tell us their children are waking up coughing thick mucus every night in rooms riddled with mould, and they are bullied because their clothes smell of damp”.
After listening to that, we must remind ourselves that it is 2022, not 1822.
It is clear that the current legislation is failing, which is compounded by a decade of Government cuts to local authority budget cuts and the cutting of access to free legal support. Between 2009 and 2019, local authority budgets to ensure that private rental standards were kept up were slashed by 44%. Local authorities have lost almost half their capacity to enforce standards.
Selective licensing is a tool that local authorities can use to tackle poor property conditions and poor practice in the private rented sector. The landlord licensing scheme in Liverpool, which ran from 2015 to 2020, found that 65% of properties were not fully compliant on the first visit. Some 37,000 compliance actions were taken to improve conditions and 250 rogue landlords were prosecuted. I saw this first hand when I worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), as his office manager, when we utilised the scheme to tackle rogue landlords. I hope the Minister can enlighten us further as to why landlord licensing is not operational across the whole country.
The regulatory framework for the private rented sector is fragmented, underfunded and, quite frankly, broken, and the White Paper and renters reform Bill must address these systemic issues. A renters reform Bill was promised by the Government in 2019. Where is it? Every single day that the Bill is delayed is a day millions spend in cold, insecure, unsafe and unaffordable homes.
During the height of the pandemic, renters were trapped in unsafe housing while the Prime Minister was apparently picking out new wallpaper. Now, many renters are fearful of section 21 evictions if they raise complaints, because they cannot afford to move house in the middle of this appalling cost of living crisis. The power imbalance means that the mental pressures facing renters are built into this broken system.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly agree with the points my hon. Friend is raising and I thank him for leading this debate. I am regularly contacted by constituents whose private landlords are refusing to fix issues. Like the examples raised by my hon. Friend, they are not small problems; ranging from black mould to rat infestations, these failings have a disastrous impact on my constituents’ health and wellbeing.
As it stands, tenants who decide to withhold rent from landlords who fail to maintain their properties to standard will be in breach of contract and have next to no protections. Does my hon. Friend agree that increasing protections for tenants should form a fundamental part of our strategy to make the PRS safer and improve conditions overall?
Ian Byrne
My hon. Friend makes some fantastic points, and I fully agree. I thank her for all the work she does on this issue in her constituency.
The Government must present the White Paper as a matter of urgency, and new legislation must have real teeth and be enforceable. A renters reform Bill must abolish section 21 and end no-fault evictions, drive up standards through an updated and improved decent homes standard and create a national landlord register and licensing scheme to improve accountability and ensure that legal standards are met. It works—Liverpool has shown that. This is not more red tape, but an investment in the health and wellbeing of present and future generations. To reinforce this, have the Government undertaken a cost-benefit analysis of what it means for a child to grow up in a home that is a threat to their health and safety?
Let us put ourselves in the shoes of the people whose cases I have outlined. If an MP or a Minister were asked to live in a flat riddled with mould, in such a state of disrepair that it endangered the life of their family members and might lead to reduced life expectancies, we would rightly hear howls of rage reverberating from both sides of the Chamber. Let us take that fury and that righteous anger and, as legislators, represent with the same force the millions who are suffering that fate daily, forced into silence because of our unjust system. That would really be levelling up, and the Minister knows it—taking on the vested interests and doing something transformational, changing the life chances of millions for the better. Surely that is why we are all in this game.
This Bill must not tinker around the edges of a broken system, and it should not just move the goalposts. It must empower tenants and hardwire social justice into the system. From working with the Minister on numerous Bill Committees and Select Committees, I know he understands the need for change; but deeds will be the measure, not words.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) on securing this debate and on a very powerful speech, setting out the conditions as he sees them in his own constituency.
I have the largest private rented sector in Britain in my borough, including some of the most high-end private accommodation it is possible to find—the luxury penthouses, the oligarch properties—but also some of the worst conditions. I am going to make three points of slightly different lengths, but my first is to beware the tyranny of the average. I urge the Minister to reflect on that point, because we know that over the decades there has been a steady overall improvement in the condition of property, including in the private rented sector. However, beneath that, we have a huge and arguably growing problem that is concentrated in particular sectors.
That problem was very well set out in Julie Rugg’s report three years or so ago, in which she looked at the sub-markets in the private rented sector. She rightly reflected on the fact that there are particular groups of people without power, including purchasing power—those who are dependent on housing benefit to rent their property—but also other kinds of power: those who do not have settled immigration status; those who have been homeless; the very young; the students; the old; and, in particular, those with disabilities. When the Minister responds and whenever we talk about this issue, it needs to be properly reflected that there is not a single sector, even allowing for geographical variations.
Secondly, I will touch briefly on the issue of enforcement. Although we will rightly hear from a number of colleagues, including the Front Benchers, about the need to move ahead with the overdue legislation to strengthen renters’ rights, those rights will mean very little unless we are sure that we have enforcement capacity—two kinds of enforcement capacity, in particular.
The first is the enforcement carried out by local authorities, particularly through their environmental health departments. Although I do not have time to reflect on this at length, we know from the work of the National Residential Landlords Association, and my own series of freedom of information inquiries to local authorities over the course of the past 10 years, that most local authorities do not enforce, or do so informally. Some of that informal enforcement will be fine, but it is untrackable—it is not monitored.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that what is needed is a centralised national landlord register that ensures accountability, so that tenants know before moving in whether their landlords have been compliant, especially in relation to health and safety?
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Before the hon. Lady continues, it might be helpful to say that she is rushing, but she does not need to: every speaker can have six or seven minutes if they want, rather than four or five.
Ms Buck
I am grateful for that, Sir Gary; I am always anxious not to take too much time.
I certainly agree that one of the issues in the private rented sector is that we do not actually know where it is, other than when it comes to those claiming housing allowance in the private rented sector. There are landlords who are renting and we do not know who they are, so it is quite hard to enforce against them.
We have a patchwork of enforcement services. That requires resources from local authorities, which have been hammered over the past 10 years of funding cuts, and also political will. The situation needs a clear steer from the centre, together with good local knowledge—local authorities are in the best position to understand something about their own local markets. It also needs individual capacity for enforcement. We have just come from a statement on legal aid; one of the issues we should be very concerned about is the significant shrinking of the housing legal section’s capacity in recent years, with fewer providers and less capacity for access to services that put individual tenants in a position to enforce their own rights.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes an important point about people in the private rental sector not being able to enforce their rights, because of lack of legal aid. Does she agree with restoring legal advice in this area? That would help prevent problems from escalating in the first place.
Ms Buck
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the earlier one intervenes, the better, in all respects.
My third substantive point is the issue of temporary accommodation. This is property rented almost invariably from the private sector, often—although not always—managed by intermediary organisations such as housing associations and procured on behalf of local authorities. I raised a debate about this issue a little over a year ago, particularly looking at my own local circumstance, but the issue is wider than that. Human Rights Watch published a report a few weeks ago on the issue of temporary accommodation: a major human rights organisation felt it necessary to carry out an inquiry and report into the scandal of families and households in temporary accommodation and the conditions in which they are living. That report is utterly devastating. In the London Borough of Westminster, we have people living like this—I will quote from a couple of recent case studies:
“I’ve lived in this temporary accommodation Since June 2020 and have been under a lot of stress and strain due to my situation…I am infested with cockroaches and mice. As my son is a toddler, I always find him with the traps for…pests and putting them in his mouth. I fear for both his and my health. I have contacted my landlord, who are A2 Dominion”—
it should ashamed of itself—and
“Westminster Housing, and they keep sending pest control…They have sprayed the house but it only made matters worse. Cockroaches are everywhere! They’re in my fridge, my bed, my sons cot, within the sofas, just EVERYWHERE! I also have damp in my kitchen wall where there is water between the walls where I have an electrical socket.”
Another constituent wrote:
“I am currently in temporary accommodation and the council and housing providers which are A2 dominion”—
a bit of a theme will emerge with A2Dominion—
“are not listening to my concerns…The flat is infested with pharoah ants. They are all over the place. These ants carry bacteria which could harm my baby if they got to her. The ants have crawled on me. Today is the last straw when I saw them on my babies bottles. Pest control came out but never returned and there’s more than before… the bedroom is…freezing.... I have to put the heating on all night and that still doesn’t help so I’ve bought an electric heater that I have to put on through the whole night because of how cold the room is, and the electric heater takes so much electric that I can’t be affording.”
Another wrote:
“This house is riddled with black mould because of the continuous flooding. This has been going on since 2017. Each and every time I have made Westminster aware of the issues, I have been told that it is my fault because I don’t keep the property ventilated…It’s because I’ve been continuously flooded. I am forever cleaning black mould off the walls. My health has got worse. So much so, my current midwife is concerned for…my unborn child…I am continuously wheezing and have a dry cough…My eldest son has asthma and always complaining that his chest is hurting him.”
Another wrote:
“I actually haven’t had any hot water for at least 18 months and have to boil the kettle to have a bath. Why am I living like this in 2022???? Myself and my 18 month old sleep in the front room as the bedroom is too mouldy to sleep in. We have a hole in the ceiling and every time it rains, the water comes through.”
The last one wrote:
“I live in a temporary accommodation provided by Westminster council. I reported a leakage and mould problem in February 2021 to the council. The timing…was…terrible because I was undergoing breast cancer treatment so it was necessary for me to be at peace in my home free from…dampness…The reply letter acknowledges that the TA suffers from…damage, mould and disrepairs and even apologises to me yet says I will only be updated once they have more information? I think this matter is…a severe health risk yet the council believes it is…fine to continue sleeping in a mould infested home and have water dripping from the ceiling while you sleep.”
I could read 50 cases like that. The chief executive of A2Dominion earned a salary package of £276,000 in 2020, despite being in charge of a stream of those cases. But A2Dominion is not the only one.
It is my strong belief that, in addition to tackling the issues of enforcement and renters’ rights, the Government need to take action on the issue of temporary accommodation. The people accommodated there are in accommodation procured by the state. The state should set a higher bar for services than for the remainder of the private rented sector; in fact, it sets a lower bar. I would very much like the Minister, a year since I last raised this, to tell me what the Government are going to do about it.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, Sir Gary. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) on securing the debate and on his excellent introduction.
As I have said before, if the issues that we debate in this place were guided by the issues that constituents come to see us about, housing would be very near the top of the list and debated far more often than it is. Whether it is tenants facing eviction, or tenants coming back to see me in my constituency surgery for a fourth or fifth time because the damp still has not been fixed, it is clear that we do not have enough housing in the right place, of the right quality or of the right tenure. That is in part because the private rented sector has changed beyond all recognition in recent years and legislation has not kept pace with those changes. The last piece of comprehensive legislation to affect the private rented sector was over 30 years ago, with the Housing Act 1988. Since then the sector has doubled in size, and that exceptional market growth, made possible by financial incentives for landlords, together with the lack of regulation, has been characterised by insecurity, poor conditions and sky-high prices.
The biggest irony, certainly in my constituency, is that many of these private sector properties were once in public ownership, before they were sold off at a discount rate, allowing many people to own their home for the first time, which is a good thing; but that generation has moved on. Those council houses were not replaced and the first proud home owners have often been usurped by private sector landlords. So we now have the ludicrous situation where in two properties, standing side by side, one tenant will have a much lower rent, much greater security and can usually be confident that any issues they have with the property will be dealt with by the regulated, accountable social landlord, but the other has none of those things. If anything demonstrates the short-term thinking that has guided housing policy for decades, that is it.
In a debate only last week, I described how reliance on the private sector had increased in my constituency due to the chronic lack of affordable and council housing, and how it was now rare to see properties offered at a rental value equivalent to the local housing allowance. A recent search of locally available properties revealed only two within the rental liability that would be covered by the LHA, with others ranging from £30 to over £200 above the required rate.
That is not a sustainable situation. People simply cannot afford to put a roof over their head in that situation, let alone pay for the increasing bills, energy, food and council tax that we hear so much about. But today’s debate, as we know, focuses specifically on poor conditions in the private rented sector and rightly so, because private renters live in the poorest-quality homes in this country, with more than one in five properties in the private sector classed as non-decent. That may well be because, in part at least, it accounts for some of the oldest housing stock, with a third of all private rented sector properties built before 1919, so it is not a surprise, perhaps, that on average private rented sector properties have worse energy standards, meaning that the tenants have to pay significantly higher heating bills due to poor insulation, inefficient heating systems or a lack of double glazing. This is important because, as the cost of living crisis starts to bite and energy prices continue to go up, it is private renters, who are already paying higher housing costs, who will be worst affected. Of course, many private rents are higher than mortgage payments and certainly higher than social housing costs. How can we justify that situation?
As we have heard, many constituents have come to their Members of Parliament with issues with their properties. I will give one example: a property that was not watertight, so that the back door leaked every time it rained; pest control issues; electrical issues, with some of the plug sockets not fitted to the wall correctly; and issues with windows sealed shut and others that could not be closed or locked. I am sure we can all agree that that is just a snapshot of the conditions that people have to live with.
Too often, people are scared of raising concerns because of the risk of retaliation by the landlord. As we have heard, tenants who received a section 21 eviction notice were twice as likely to have complained directly to their landlord, five times more likely to have gone to their local authority and eight times more likely to have complained to a redress scheme, prior to receiving their eviction notice, resulting in a staggering 46% chance of their being served with a section 21 notice within six months of the complaint.
I met a couple this weekend who were in that position. They told me that they had been raising disrepair issues with their landlord for five years. When he finally acted, what did he do? He began work on repairs but decided to evict them at the same time. They are now living in temporary accommodation. No wonder people are reluctant to challenge landlords.
For too long, private rental properties have not had the priority they deserve from Government. A need for improvement of renters’ position was acknowledged in 2019, and again in the Queen’s Speech of 2021. Both committed to bringing forward reforms to drive improvements and standards in the private rented sector but, as we have heard, we are still waiting for those improvements. We were expecting a White Paper last autumn. In reply to my written question on the matter last month, the Minister said that would now be spring. We are now in spring, and I am hoping to hear from the Minister when we might see that White Paper and the Government finally taking the action that many Members want to see.
Housing is a basic human right. Decent and affordable housing has the power to improve people’s lives fundamentally and the life chances of children in my constituency and throughout the country. Every day that the Government delay reform is another day that people are living in cold, unsafe, insecure and unaffordable homes. For millions of people, that is an unacceptable situation that has to change, because they deserve better.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) for calling this important debate. The Minister may be aware that yesterday, at the Select Committee on Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, we heard powerful testimonies from two social housing tenants about similar issues in the private rented sector.
My constituency of Vauxhall, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), has one of the highest levels of private renters in the country. The average house price in Vauxhall is around £600,000, as of June 2021. Private renters also pay more than their fair share, often spending more than a quarter—in some cases, a third—of their income on rent.
For that cost, the very least my constituents deserve is to live in housing in good condition. That means that the properties they are renting should meet modern standards of insulation and energy efficiency. It means that structural defects should be fixed and not left to cause serious problems. It means that urgent repairs should be carried out rapidly, to a high standard. It means expecting the same standards and efficiency from a landlord that homeowners deserve and have in their own properties.
Too often we see private rented properties not living up to those standards. Instead, we see tenants living with health-damaging features, such as mould, for months if not years. We see requests to fix faults met with sticking-plaster solutions. Although many of us may associate disrepair and poor energy efficiency with our elderly housing stock, those renting new homes and flats are not immune to finding some of the issues that I have talked about. That was the case for my constituent, Louise. She moved into new student accommodation in Vauxhall, as her family home was overcrowded and she wanted space during her time at university. The student accommodation was in a new tower block and Louise moved in soon after it opened in September last year.
Unfortunately, where Louise should have expected a new quality build, she instead found something only half done, according to her description. She says her experience has included being stuck in lifts that did not work, with firefighters coming out to help her; hot water issues; dirty water coming from taps; and tailgaters coming into the building. She said that amenities such as the laundry room were not opened until October, despite her moving in in early September. In addition, the kitchen doors and curtains were all missing.
Louise is far from alone in that experience. It is worth remembering that this is student accommodation, where many are accessing the private rented sector for the first time, and so many are scared to speak up, but continue to live in those substandard conditions. We need to understand that lack of agency when we talk about standards enforcement and ensure that conditions across the board meet the standards that we all expect. First, where standards are in place, as hon. Members have said, local councils’ ability to regulate them is drastically undermined by the cuts imposed by central Government. That makes proactive action hard and it means that tenants with so little experience of the private rental sector are unfortunately exploited by unscrupulous landlords. Providing fair funding to local authorities would allow the enforcement bodies to clean up the sector and ensure that those without a voice were not left at the mercy of disrepair.
Secondly, the insecurity at the heart of current private tenancy law goes hand-in-hand with the fears of raising issues with properties and demanding rights as a tenant. Next month, as the Minister knows, will be three years since the Government promised to end section 21 evictions, yet we are still to see that in the renters reform Bill. I hope the Minister will listen to our contributions this afternoon. I know he cares passionately about this area. I hope he will commit to bringing that vital piece of legislation forward as soon as possible to provide that reassurance and, most importantly, the protection that my constituents in Vauxhall deserve and renters up and down the country need.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) for setting the scene so very well. He does so with a knowledge and a determination for the change that each and every one of us wishes to see. I will give a Northern Ireland perspective, which the Minister is not responsible for, but will do so in order to back up the hon. Gentleman and the other speakers. It is always a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi). She and I usually spar in this Chamber. Either she is first and I am second, or vice versa. Today the hon. Lady takes prominence, as she always does.
These are incredibly poignant issues. There are just not enough houses to meet the need in Northern Ireland, and that has meant that people pay high rents for properties that are not fit for purpose, let alone worth the money. In my office there are three massive and critical issues—benefits, housing and planning matters. Every day in my office features housing issues.
Two years ago, the rent for a standard three-bed house in Newtownards, the major town in my constituency, would cost approximately £450—for a nice house in a nice area. Two years on, that same house will now cost at least £750. I was in shock just the other week when a lady came into the office. She is divorced from her husband—separation happens—has three children and was paying £850 for a house. The gas boiler was broken and she could not set the timer. She is in private accommodation because that is all that was available. She had to press the boost button each hour to make it work, in a house in wintertime with three children. The difficulty for her was that she could never get a house with the Housing Executive, which is the equivalent to council housing over here on the mainland, because she and her partner work and they have an income and good health, so there is no way in the world that they will ever qualify for the points to get them a Housing Executive house. It would be the same here.
That is a real problem. They are stuck in a rental house, they cannot get out of that rental house and there is no other accommodation, rental or private rental where they can go, so they find themselves in a very difficult position. My constituent had divorced her husband. Separation happens; not every marriage succeeds and hers unfortunately did not. They did not have enough credit to buy a house, for which a mortgage would have cost her less. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) mentioned mortgages and if someone were able to get a mortgage for a house, they might be able to pay less and have something to look towards. Unlike in the constituency of the hon. Member for Vauxhall, the average price of a house in my constituency is £250,000.
My constituent asked if we would contact her landlord to get the heating on in the morning so that her children were not shivering while getting dressed. That is the reality of housing in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland today; every Member has said it, and every other Member who will speak will confirm it. The simple solution on paper for her was to move, and yet she could not find anything large enough or in her price range. She therefore had no option other than to pay the top price for that low-quality housing—I know that this is replicated in too many other constituencies.
The Northern Ireland Assembly report for the Private Tenancies Bill states that
“the private rented sector continues to play a critical role in meeting housing need in NI”.
The latest available data, which is from 2016—hardly up to date—indicates that the private rental sector has taken over from the social housing sector as the second-largest housing tenure. Approximately 17.4% of occupied dwellings are in the private rental sector, in comparison to the Executive—known as council housing here—which makes up 15.6% of occupied dwellings.
According to the Department for Communities, nearly half of those in the private rental sector are in receipt of some element of housing support. We say this every day in debates, but it does not lessen the issue: the price of energy is going through the roof. Renting is one cost, but then there is gas, electric or oil—whatever it may be. Housing benefit becomes a critical factor for many tenants in my constituency who are in the low-wage bracket and find those costs difficult to deal with. It is either through universal credit or housing benefit that they get help. In 2019-20, some £270 million was paid into the private rental sector, either in housing benefit or through the housing-costs element of universal credit. That tells us a wee bit about the magnitude of the issue we have before us.
The current fitness standard for all housing tenures in Northern Ireland, including private rental sector properties, has been in place since 1992. It is not the Minister’s fault, but it is totally unsatisfactory to have a standard set some 30 years ago. The housing fitness standard has been described as a physical standard, but it is arguably very outdated and does not sufficiently address issues such as thermal comfort, energy efficiency or home safety—three critical factors. As people have referred to, there are houses overrun with ants, spiders and insects, so we do need to raise the bar, and raise it soon.
Too many families are living in substandard housing. There is too little legislative weight on landlords to do what they should morally be doing. As we have families faced with high fuel prices, they can little afford to carry out the work that landlords should be carrying out for them. It has occurred to me that we must make it a priority in this House to work on this issue, which is tantamount to the abuse of the vulnerable—those who feel trapped by poverty and circumstance, and by a lack of legal support and redress. I hope that the legal statement that was made today can help; I think the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) referred to that. We hope that the legal changes that have been talked about today may help get legal redress.
I know that the Northern Ireland Assembly are seeking to address this issue back home; we in this House must also ensure that obligations on landlords are a UK-wide standard. The Minister works hard at his job and I respect him, but I will ask him to take the UK-wide approach on board when considering the matter further. People in every corner of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland deserve that protection, regardless of their postcode. The hon. Member for Vauxhall said it was about helping people; I totally agree with that. Our job is to make sure that people’s lives can get better. We need to do that.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing this incredibly important debate. Decent housing should be a basic right for all. The private rental sector has grown significantly over the last decade, but the Government have been incredibly slow in protecting the rights of renters.
The English Housing Survey estimated that 21% of private rental sector homes did not meet the decent homes standard, and 13% of privately rented homes have a serious health hazard. The impact of that on my constituents is huge. Last year I was contacted by a constituent who raised concerns about her privately rented property. Cigarette smoke from other tenants in the block would fill her entire flat, and her five-month-old baby developed a cough that doctors said was directly due to the smoke. Despite raising that with her landlords, and giving them the opportunity to fix the situation, it was not resolved and she was instead asked to tell her neighbours to stop smoking. Eventually she was placed on the housing register, but her private landlord wanted to charge her huge fees just to move out. Minimum standards were clearly not kept up, but with no clear regulation of the private rented sector, the landlords have the power to dictate these fees to the tenant, even when the property is unsuitable for habitation. My constituent also tells me that she was left without hot water for her and her baby for 11 days, without getting any response from her landlords. She has decided to move out of London, her home city, in the hope of finding better, more affordable accommodation.
The Government’s inaction on section 21 no-fault evictions is also having a profound effect on my constituents. Despite the Government announcing in 2019 that they would abolish the measure, they are yet to do so. One of my constituents, who is unable to work due to a number of complex health issues, was served with a section 21 notice completely out of the blue, giving her one month to find a property for her and her children. She was told that she would struggle to get social housing and would have to move far away from her local support structures. She wrote to me stating that the whole experience had pushed her to the verge of suicide. I know it is difficult to hear, but policy decisions have a very real effect on the hardest hit. The Government should immediately abolish section 21 and give people security of tenure.
Another constituent who escaped domestic abuse was also served a section 21 notice from her private rented accommodation. She then found herself in appalling conditions. The temporary housing was covered in mould and damp, and there was an infestation of slugs. Instead of having this addressed, she was advised just to find another property. She and her children are now trapped in squalor, and have few or no options. This is a vulnerable family who, if not supported into decent housing, could find themselves back in the path of their abuser. Sadly, her case is not unique.
While the private rented sector is an important part of the housing mix, there has been a lack of urgency from the Government to take action on keeping the sector up to standard, and on giving renters rights. In the absence of such action, I want to mention some of the work that has been done in my constituency. While almost every council has a landlord forum, very few have formalised ways of communicating with private renters. Lewisham Council and others are trying to change this at local level. Lewisham is working with Generation Rent to research how private renters want to be engaged with, and as part of that, Generation Rent has launched a survey and planned focus groups with private renters in the borough. The aim is to provide a link between renters and councils; help the local authority become better informed about the issues that private renters face and what it can do to support them; and help renters to become more knowledgeable about the council services available to them.
Local authorities cannot fix the system alone. We need a commitment and the energy to drive this forward at national level, yet to date the Government have failed to give councils the powers to deliver landlord licensing, to deliver their planned White Paper on rental reform, and to update the decent homes standard. Sadly, this just reflects the Government’s record of kicking renters’ rights into the long grass. Every day that the Government delay reform is a day many people spend in cold, dilapidated, hazardous and unaffordable homes. My constituents and many others across the country cannot wait any longer. Rental reform has to be done now, and done right.
I hope that today the Government are listening to all these stories from up and down the country of what people are facing in the private rented sector, and that they will outline when the millions of renters living in terrible conditions will finally be treated fairly.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I congratulate my good and hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) on securing this important debate. It speaks volumes that, apart from the Minister—to whom I mean no disrespect—and his Parliamentary Private Secretary, no Government Members are present for this debate. They really should be. I do not know if it is an indication that there are no problems in the private rented sector in the constituencies of Government MPs, but this is a really important issue for me and for many Opposition Members.
I know from personal experience that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby, is a long-term advocate of improving housing quality and conditions. Even before he was elected to this House, he very kindly hosted members of my team from Easington, who visited Liverpool in 2018 to discuss and see for themselves how that city’s very successful selective private sector rented scheme was improving the community’s quality of life. I am grateful for that, because we learned from that scheme.
I will use the little time I have to highlight the issues that affect my constituency in east Durham. I am pleased to note that after many delays and much procrastination by the Government, permission was finally given to Durham County Council to implement a scheme based on the very successful Liverpool model. That scheme will come into effect on 1 April this year. That selective licensing scheme is not a solution, but it is an important tool in the toolbox. I thank Councillor Kevin Shaw, who my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby met during that visit. He is the erstwhile holder of the housing portfolio at Durham County Council, and has always been a champion of driving up standards, tackling homelessness, and the effective regulation of absentee landlords.
This is not an abstract argument. I hope the Minister will take up some of the invitations that have been extended to him, in order to see the impact that absentee landlords have on former mining communities such as Easington Colliery, Horden and Blackhall. That impact is really quite sinful, and clearly exposes the Government’s myth of levelling up. People living in those private rented properties, which in many cases are former colliery houses, think that term is some kind of joke. Far from levelling up, many people are struggling just to keep up.
When preparing for this debate, I was reflecting on the fact that I served for a number of years on Easington District Council, a local authority that had housing responsibilities. The vision of my predecessors was “farewell to squalor”—an end to squalid housing conditions—and that gave birth to the new town of Peterlee. The idea was that we would never again suffer the appalling conditions that so many families in my constituency were subjected to before the development of that new town.
From the Government’s statements and Ministers’ responses to debates, it seems as though they measure success on housing policy by new building starts. However, there are multiple facets to, and crises in, the UK housing sector, from a lack of affordable housing stock in overheated economies, such as in parts of London and the south-east, to problems associated with derelict and void properties in the northern regions, in areas such as mine, which are falling into decline and damaging local communities. A number of Members have made positive suggestions; I do not want to elaborate on those, but I hope the Minister will respond to the suggestion about section 21 no-fault evictions, the suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) about addressing the issue of poor energy efficiency, and all the other suggestions made. When he responds to my remarks, I would like him to concentrate on the availability of a selective licensing scheme for the private sector.
When these problems were arising, I pointed them out to the Housing Minister. I was just checking how many Housing Ministers there have been since I was first elected in 2010; I think the current Secretary of State for Transport was the Housing Minister then, and there have been 11 or 12 since. Perhaps part of the problem is getting a grip on the portfolio and understanding the depth of the problem. As soon as we feel that we are making some progress with a Minister, they are shuffled, and we have to start all over again. I am not making excuses for the Minister, and I am sure he will respond in his own way.
Seven years ago, I warned the then Housing Minister, the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), that the bedroom tax was undermining the viability of social housing in many of my communities, and I pointed out the problems arising in the former mining community of Horden, where Accent Housing, a housing association, withdrew an investment plan after local housing market failure and a collapse in demand, partially because of the bedroom tax undermined demand for certain types of properties in the area. I said that I understood that Accent Housing
“is currently seeking permission from the Homes and Communities Agency to dispose of its properties on the private market, which means that it will put…up…for auction”—[Official Report, 11 February 2015; Vol. 592, c. 266WH.]
the whole of its housing stock, amounting to several hundred houses. That meant ownership was fragmented among many private landlords, who bought small parcels of stock. Instead of dealing with a stock of 500, 600 or 700 houses, we had dozens and dozens of private owners buying three or four properties. I warned then that the consequence would be an influx of absentee private landlords. They are not bad people; I am not suggesting that they are evil. Some have good intentions. They buy these properties, often at auction without even seeing them, to put that investment in their pension portfolio, but the effect has been bad for residents, tenants and the wider community.
I want action from the Government. I fear that their policies have laid the foundations for many of the problems with poor condition of housing stock. There has been decline of local housing demand, increases in the number of derelict and void properties, and a decline in the local quality of life. I have no doubt that the rise in crime and antisocial behaviour has been exacerbated by Government policies, and by the reduction we had in the number of police. I know we are all desperately trying to reverse that, but much of the damage has been done, and it will take a huge commitment and a great deal of time and effort to recover from this position.
Horden is not alone. Many areas, particularly former industrial areas—perhaps including the Minister’s constituency—have been blighted by problems and the short-sighted nature of managed decline. My constituency needs significant funding for housing redevelopment and regeneration, so will the Minister stop holding competitions to identify the areas of greatest need? He should take responsibility for the devastation that has been inflicted on communities such as mine, where people have served the nation, including by mining the coal that powered the engines of industry that made Britain great, and they deserve recognition.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister not to join his long list of predecessors in batting aside the criticism. I want him to work with the Labour party Front Benchers, and to visit my community. I want us to work together to create a funding and investment package that will improve my area and others. I want an investment package that will really deliver on the levelling-up promise. We want an end to meaningless rhetoric.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), who campaigns tirelessly to try to find ways in which we can lift people out of poverty. They suffer, through no fault of their own, because the system is rigged against them. I especially pay tribute to his work fighting for a legal right to food, so that no families or children go hungry in the fifth richest economy on the planet.
We had a fantastic debate on supported housing recently in the Chamber. A number of my colleagues spoke and exposed the racket in the housing sector. I hope in my brief comments to suggest a few ways in which the Government could begin to put things into reverse.
The private rented sector is booming in this country—and in Liverpool; it accounts for 32% of all housing stock across the city, and in at least one third of council wards, the proportion is approaching 50%. Liverpool, Walton, which I represent, is ranked as the most deprived constituency in the whole of England. My office is overwhelmed by constituents coming to me and my staff for help because the places where they live are blighted by damp, mould, cold, or vermin.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
I apologise for not being here at the start of the debate due to other commitments. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just those in private rented accommodation who find themselves trapped in totally unacceptable conditions—many of which we have heard about today? People such as Janice Dawson and her husband, in my constituency, can be forced to live in damp and unhealthy leasehold properties because management companies fail for years to carry out essential repairs, despite repeated promises to do so.
Dan Carden
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She is absolutely right, and that problem is found not just in leaseholds, but in supported housing and housing association homes. In every sector that we look at, there is too little regulation and funding to put those issues right.
When my constituents come to me with those issues of damp, mould, cold and vermin, they are ignored by their unscrupulous landlords. The overstretched local authority, which is supposed to attempt to enforce the few housing standards that we have, is doing so with ever-dwindling resources because of more than a decade of austerity cuts. We should not underestimate the constant, crushing, dehumanising misery that squalid housing conditions cause people and families. The local authority has made tackling those problems a priority in recent years, especially in the private rented sector, but needs urgent support, which the Government have failed to deliver.
In 2015, Liverpool City Council introduced the UK’s first city-wide landlord licensing scheme, which my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) saw in operation. Since its introduction, 70% of inspected properties have been found to be in breach of their licence conditions. Some 37,000 compliance actions were carried out, 2,500 legal and fixed penalty notices were issued, and almost 250 landlords were prosecuted. In practical terms, that meant improving the lives of tenants, making electrics safe, installing fire doors, eradicating damp and preventing illegal evictions. In other words, the scheme worked.
What did the Government do when Liverpool City Council applied for a new licensing scheme in 2019? It rejected the application—a huge blow for residents. Only after numerous resubmissions have we found out that the scheme can be reintroduced in April. However, this time, it will apply to only 80% of the city’s wards, because of a diktat from Whitehall. That will undermine the city council’s ability to enforce standards across the region, and tenants will suffer as a result.
In the light of a near 65% cut in Government funding to Liverpool’s core budget since 2010, Ministers must look at how they can do more to support local authorities that want to ensure that residents have security, dignity and comfort in their home. The Government must rescind the damaging relaxation of permitted development rights and return those powers to local government, too. Ministers should turn their attention to what could be done to support the creation of flourishing communities that support the health and wellbeing of their residents, not least by implementing comprehensive national housing standards.
In recent months and years, I have been working with the Town and Country Planning Association to seek to introduce a healthy homes Act, which would effectively outlaw the slums of the future. We need robust new measures to hold landlords and developers to account. A significant barrier to effective action is the radical imbalance in access to Government among interest groups. We cannot tackle the housing crisis without tackling the undue influence that property developers have over Government policy. A recent report by Transparency International UK found that although property tycoons have an open door into Whitehall, tenants are shut out. Given that private renters make up one in five of all households across Britain, their absence from policy making is conspicuous. It warps the process in favour of vested interests.
At a recent Public Accounts Committee hearing on the regulation of private renting, I made sure that ACORN, the community and tenants’ union, was invited to give evidence. I wonder if the Minister has ever met with that union. The testimony provided to the Committee by ACORN’S representative was powerful and is too rarely heard. I urge the Minister to tell us what he plans to do to address that imbalance and ensure that tenants are given a seat at the table.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Gary. The debate is incredibly important. The issue does not get enough attention in this place but, as all Members will know, it is of huge and growing importance to many of our constituents, not least given the size of the private rented sector and its ongoing—and, indeed, accelerating—expansion.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) on securing the debate and on the way he opened it. As always, he spoke with great force and sincerity on behalf of his constituents, and brought alive the reality of the appalling conditions faced by far too many of those renting privately.
Following his impassioned remarks, we heard a series of incredibly powerful contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Westminster North (Ms Buck), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), as well as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Their contributions were all directly informed by their respective constituency experiences and the obviously huge housing caseloads each of them deals with on a weekly basis.
It is not in dispute that some of the worst standards in housing are in the private rented sector. It goes without saying that that statement should not be taken to imply that every privately rented property is in bad condition, or that all private landlords fail their tenants. I also fully accept—no doubt it will be referenced in the remarks the Minister’s officials have prepared for him—that, measured by either the decent homes standard or the housing health and safety rating system category 1 hazards, the absolute number and proportion of poor quality private rented homes continues to fall, albeit steadily rather than drastically, as part of a half century if not longer of improvement in housing standards.
There is still clearly an acute problem for those private sector tenants who are the most vulnerable, have little or no purchasing power, are increasingly concentrated at the lower end of the private rental market and—as anecdotal evidence would suggest—are also increasingly concentrated geographically. However, we still need the Department to provide accurate data on precisely how private rented homes are distributed across the country.
As we have heard from all speakers today, for tenants forced to live in homes that do not meet the decent homes standard and that often have a category 1 hazard what should be a place of refuge and comfort is instead a source of daily anxiety and, in many cases, torment and misery. Whether they wake up every day to mould, vermin or dangerous hazards, today’s debate has provided yet more evidence that substandard private rented housing takes a huge toll on the physical and mental health of those in it and prevents families and children—it is this I find the most saddening—from flourishing as they should be able to.
I know the Under-Secretary cares deeply about improving housing standards and life chances, but it should be a real source of shame to him and his colleagues that after 12 years of Conservative-led Government, one in five homes in the private rented sector still does not meet the decent homes standard and one in 10 has a category 1 hazard posing a risk of serious harm. The Minister and his colleagues should be agitating week in, week out for the changes necessary to bear down decisively on this problem, and for those changes to be enacted as a matter of urgency. What makes the situation all the more frustrating is that it is patently obvious what the required changes are and, indeed, there is broad consensus across the House on most of them.
I leave aside the more fundamental issue of a striking lack of decent, secure and genuinely affordable social homes to rent, which is in many ways at the heart of the problem, and will instead use the time left to explore in a little more detail the three most important areas where change in the private rented sector is required: standards, enforcement and rights. Each has already featured in the debate.
First, on standards, a technical but crucial issue is that the Government need to review and strengthen national standards for rented homes, and to do so at pace. The decent homes standard, which provides for general benchmarking, has not been updated since 2006. It is welcome that it is being reviewed, but the process needs to be expedited. Will the Minister tell us when the Government expect the decent homes standard review to complete? The HHSRS is also under review and we need the conclusions of that exercise to be published as soon as possible. Will the Minister give us an update on when he expects that review to complete?
My final point on standards is that, in the levelling-up White Paper, the Government committed to exploring
“proposals for new minimum standards for rented homes”.
Obviously, we have no issue with that in principle, but will the Minister give us some sense of how such minimum standards would interact with the updated decent homes standard and the HHSRS? The last thing we need is to make the current regime even more complex and challenging to administer.
Secondly, the Government must start taking enforcement more seriously. A number of contributors have talked about the importance of enforcement. The Minister could emerge from Marsham Street in a month’s time with proposals for the most robust set of national standards possible, but it would count for little if those standards could not then be enforced in practice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North mentioned, two changes need to be made if the Government are to facilitate the proper enforcement of standards across the country.
The first is to give local authorities the means to enforce standards properly themselves. At present, enforcement of standards across the country is incredibly patchy and tenants face a postcode lottery as a result. Those councils that could do more with the resources they have but are not need to be encouraged to do so, but the problem in large part is the product of central Government funding cuts over many years. Does the Minister accept as much? If so, what plans do the Government have to provide local authorities with the funding and support they need to enforce regulations, as well as enabling, rather than frustrating, those authorities that wish to adopt landlord licensing schemes?
The second change is to enable tenants themselves to enforce standards. I appreciate that the issue lies outside of the Minister’s departmental responsibilities, but does he accept that unless legal aid is reintroduced for disrepair claims so that lower income tenants can seek to enforce existing standards—let alone future standards—progress on his objectives is likely to be held back?
Thirdly, the Government must act now to give renters more rights and better protection, so that they can seek redress for poor quality conditions and disrepair without fear of retribution. There is clear consensus across the House that we need to overhaul the outdated legislation that applies to the private rented sector. However, it is now three years since the Conservative Administration of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) promised to abolish section 21 no-fault evictions. There has been a lot of talk about the White Paper today but, perhaps most disappointingly, we were promised a renter’s reform Bill in the Queen’s Speech last year yet as we approach the end of the Session, not only is there no sign of that Bill but we are now told to expect a White Paper in its place in the spring.
Of course, we need to ensure that any proposals for reform are considered and properly scrutinised, but tenants need protection now. They cannot afford to wait 12, 16, 18, 24 months or longer for the White Paper to be published and consulted on and for legislation to be brought forward. Given the implications for tenants suffering now, I would like to hear from the Minister why, having committed to a Bill in this Session, the Government have now determined that a White Paper will do instead.
To conclude, the House must act to improve conditions for the millions of private renters trapped in substandard housing, and must act quickly. Tenants living in squalid conditions cannot wait years while the Government slowly analyse yet more reviews and engage in more consultations and delay. We know what needs to happen; it is now a question of delivering it. I look forward to hearing from the Minister that the Government are not only seized by the urgency of the problem but, as a result, will look again at how the changes that need to be made can be enacted quickly.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
I remind the Minister to leave three minutes at least for Ian Byrne to wind up.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. Given that I have a bit of a cold, it might be easier for me to conclude two or three minutes early, to give my voice a rest. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing this debate on the quality of housing, which is an issue that affects us all. Although I appreciate that there has been no representation from the Government side, I like to reflect that that might be because my colleagues have faith in the Minister responsible and the forthcoming promise of legislation, but that will be for others to judge.
We have discussed standards in the private rented sector. I am delighted that the opportunity has arisen, because we have ambitious plans to create a vibrant private rented sector that is safe, healthy and fit for purpose. During the debate, we have heard a wealth of expertise and experience from across the House. Although I appreciate that we are on different sides of the House, I like to think we are on the same side of the argument. I share others’ determination to address these problems.
I start by reiterating our commitment to drive up standards in the private rented sector. Good quality housing can help to improve a wide range of outcomes, including health, quality of life and educational attainment. Since 2004, landlords have had to ensure that their properties are free from the most serious category 1 hazards, those that that pose an imminent risk to tenants’ health. In 2016, we strengthened local authorities’ enforcement powers to deal with hazardous properties by introducing financial penalties of up to £30,000, extending rent payment orders and introducing banning orders for the most serious and prolific offenders. Councils have been using those powers.
I fully appreciate that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), says that the Government are not spending enough, but I think the examples I give show that some councils are doing that. He described the provision as patchy, which is unfortunate and certainly something the Government would like to address, but there are definitely examples of good practice.
Enforcement action by Burnley Borough Council over the past two years, for example, has netted fines and costs of more than £85,000. This year, Bristol City Council banned a landlord for letting or managing properties for five years after it found he was running a seriously unsafe house, with 18 tenants, including six children. At the height of the pandemic in 2020, when people were spending so much more time in their homes, we increased safety further by requiring landlords to ensure that electrics in properties were safe. Local councils have also been using powers we gave them to do that. Fenland District Council has fined four landlords £25,000 for dangerous electrics. We are amending regulations to make it mandatory for both social and private landlords to instal a carbon monoxide alarm in any room used as living accommodation where a fixed combustion appliance of any fuel type is used.
There has been a marked improvement in standards in the private rented sector. The proportion of homes in the sector with category 1 hazards has halved since 2010. However, as the shadow Minister pointed out, 12% of homes in the sector still contain serious hazards. It is not good enough, so I need to talk about what we will do.
The levelling-up White Paper outlined a set of ambitious missions to level up the country and support our communities. On housing quality, the Government set our ambition to half the number of non-decent rented homes by 2030, with the biggest improvements in the lowest-performing areas. We have committed to consult on introducing a legally binding decent home standards in the private rented sector. We are working with a range of experts to review the housing, health and safety rating system risk assessment tool, which forms part of the decent home standards. That will make it more efficient and effective for local authorities to use and more accessible for tenants and landlords.
We are exploring a register of private rented properties so that local councils can identify where to target their enforcement and leave the good landlords alone. We are also committed to requiring all private landlords to belong to a redress scheme to drive up standards further and ensure all tenants have a right to redress. As have been said, we will abolish no-fault evictions, which will mean tenants who complain about poor standards are protected from revenge evictions. We will publish our landmark White Paper later this spring, which I understand technically starts on 20 March, so I hope very soon.
Let me turn to the issues that Members have raised. I appreciate it is slightly outside the course of the debate, but the social rented sector was mentioned by a few Members. We had the social housing White Paper, the charter for social housing residents. The regulator for social housing and the housing ombudsman have not needed to wait for us to introduce legislation to become more muscular in their interactions with the problems they face. The housing ombudsman has seriously increased its number of staff, as has the housing regulator. As we prepare for legislation, I am in constant contact with them both to ensure that they will have the powers that they need, but they already have the staff they need to carry out that level of enforcement.
A number of people mentioned the problems with mould in the socially rented sector, which was deplorable. Following the report published by the housing ombudsman, we do not have the presumption that it is the tenant’s fault—a lifestyle choice on their part—that causes damp, so we are already seeing steps in the right direction in advance of any legislation.
On the items listed by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, I share the frustration with section 21. Clearly, that will be fundamental in the White Paper. It seems deplorable that people could be concerned about reporting dangerous items in their property to their landlord with that fear hanging over them. We have consulted widely. I share the concerns of others and that will be fundamental to our reforms.
Jim Shannon
The shadow Minister clearly said that there are landlords who are doing the job right, but there are those who do not. Is it the Minister’s intention to bring those people up to the standard of those who do it right? Owning rented accommodation is not a cash cow; it is more than that. There is an obligation to look after their tenant. Will the standard be those good owners of rental accommodation?
Eddie Hughes
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It was raised by another Member with regard to the balance of power between tenants and landlords. For too long, the power has rested more fundamentally with landlords and we need to redress that balance to bring the standards of the worst up to the standards of the good, and we need to accept that that might mean that some landlords will exit the sector. If they have been providing a particularly poor service and poor quality accommodation, the sector will be better for their absence from it. That is why we are consulting on a decent homes standard for the PRS. Unfortunately, I am not able to say when that work will be concluded, other than in due course, but we are working closely with stakeholders to make sure that the review gives us an appropriate basis for legislation in the future.
I completely accept that there have been problems previously with the selective licensing across Liverpool. My understanding of the situation is that there were some statutory problems with the application. I appreciate that it might have been an administrative-type problem, but at least we are there now. I am an enthusiastic consultee with regard to the idea of a landlords’ register, because it would be incredibly helpful for all councils to know where their private rented landlords are, and it would help them focus whatever resources they have more specifically.
Grahame Morris
This is not a one-way Streeter—sorry, street even for the tenants. There are certain advantages for landlords of such a scheme being adopted, which I understand will happen in County Durham in two weeks’ time, based on the excellent scheme that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) was promoting.
Eddie Hughes
It is great to hear about good work that is going on across the country, and I fully accept that we can learn from the work that other areas are doing.
I quickly want to cover a few more points. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) mentioned Louise’s case. I would be grateful if she would write to me, so I can pick up that case, because we need to be concerned about standards in all forms of accommodation, and student accommodation is one of them. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised working with devolved assemblies. One of the things I have been working on is the new homes ombudsman, who will ensure the new properties we build are of an appropriate quality. We have been working very closely with the devolved Assemblies on that issue, and we will continue to do so in other areas.
I am grateful for the invitation from the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) to visit. I hope there is no reshuffle before I get the opportunity to get out and about more, to say the least. With regard to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), when we are talking about insecurity and poor quality housing, I hope that work to abolish section 21 will address both those points because tenants will have more security and more leverage to complain about the standards of accommodation they are being provided with.
Matthew Pennycook
The one question I would like the Minister to answer before he wraps up is why the Government have decided to replace a commitment to a renters reform Bill in this Session with a White Paper. Can he guarantee that we will get that comprehensive renters reform Bill in this Parliament?
Eddie Hughes
It would be fair to say that I will do everything I can. I feel personally invested in ensuring that happens. On the delay, I am not sure this is the legitimate answer the Government expect me to give, but we have been through two years of covid, and I have seen—we are seeing it now with the situation in Ukraine—that a number of staff have to pivot to the most pressing item that the Government are dealing with. We have a finite number of staff, and clearly covid has caused incredible challenges for the Government. I personally feel that they have responded well, but I understand the frustration. I conclude by saying that the debate has been incredibly useful for me—
Eddie Hughes
I do not have time to give way; I need to give the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby time to wrap up. I remain open and will continue the conversation with hon. Members should they wish to take that opportunity.
Ian Byrne
It is clear from the contributions to the debate that the message is loud and clear: for so many, the system is unfair and unjust, and it leaves so many tenants living in fear, squalor and genuine worry about what the future holds for them and their families. We should think of this statistic when we leave this place today and we should think of it every day: poor housing can knock 20 years off somebody’s life. That is something that we should never forget. It is what should drive all of us in this Parliament.
I welcome the passionate contributions today from my fellow Members—the debate has been excellent—and from the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook). I also welcome the Minister’s commitment. I know that he genuinely wants to drive social justice through the Bill that we are talking about. I welcome his commitment on abolishing section 21 and his acknowledgement that current landlord licensing is patchy. We will see what is in the White Paper when it eventually comes. I look forward to working with the Minister in driving that. I hope that he redresses the situation and that we get a landlord licence scheme rolled out nationally, because licensing works and would make such a difference.
I thank everybody very much for taking the time to participate today. I really hope that the Minister does remember the 20-year fact, because deeds are far more important than words.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered poor quality conditions and disrepair in private rented sector housing.
BBC Accountability and Transparency
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Gregory Campbell will move the motion and then the Minister will respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up the debate, as is the convention for 30-minute debates, so the Minister will have the final word.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered BBC accountability and transparency to Government and licence fee payers.
The BBC traditionally was a world-leading news and current affairs broadcaster—paid for, of course, by the licence fee. When I have raised issues such as the one that I will raise today, the Government have said that it is for the BBC to deal with how it allocates and spends our licence fee moneys. I understand and accept that. The problem is that when I and others raise very important issues such as the lack of transparency and the lack of accountability and I and others go to places such as our regional BBC, we do not get answers. Then we come to BBC London and we do not get answers. Then we go to the National Audit Office and we do not get answers. Then we go to Ofcom and we do not get answers. The buck has to stop somewhere, and eventually the buck stops with the Government, Parliament and all of us who, on the public’s behalf, have to try to hold the BBC to account.
A few years ago, as the Minister and others will remember, we had the term “on-screen talent”, which sometimes is a misnomer. There was an issue about the on-screen talent having huge salaries about which no one knew anything. I and others campaigned long and hard to get those salaries brought into the public domain. We all remember programmes in which publicly paid broadcasters were asking us as MPs how we allocated our overheads and how we spent our salaries, how we divvied up our salaries. On rare occasions, Ministers would say, “Just hang on a minute, Mr Dimbleby. How do you spend your money, given that you get it from the licence fee?” Unfortunately, very few people did that, although some of us did. The BBC is very good at asking questions, but it is not very good at answering them. That eventually worked its way through and the BBC now has a banding process whereby it announces the salaries of on-screen talent in certain bands, which is some progress but not sufficient.
Then, on the topic of accountability, we moved on to the issue of outside interests. That resulted in the BBC putting an external events register on their website 18 months ago. I quote:
“As announced in October 2020, the BBC will publish a quarterly summary of the paid-for external events undertaken by on-air staff in journalism and senior leaders, in order to promote the highest standards of impartiality.”
That sounds very good.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on having secured this debate. He has mentioned two issues in relation to wages and others, but he also referred to impartiality. Does my hon. Friend agree that people are now aware that the political agenda of the BBC is premium, and while we have heard about the revamp of attitude, we have seen little fruit? The BBC’s coverage of the Democratic Unionist party—my party and that of my hon. Friend—before the election has been pointed and, indeed, pointedly detrimental. Does he agree that this is an indication that the culture in the BBC remains the same—biased, bitter carping by too many producers?
Mr Campbell
Indeed. On many occasions, a stark contrast can be seen between the interruptions, constant bickering and trying to misinterpret what is being said by certain of us, and the kid gloves used with others.
For that external events register, the BBC initially put out two columns: if a presenter was undertaking external tasks, they were either paid under £5,000 or over £5,000. That is not really much of a guide, because we do not know whether that person got £25 for speaking at an event or £4,995. The BBC then relented under some pressure, and there are now four categories: under £1,000, between £1,000 and £5,000, between £5,000 and £10,000, and over £10,000. That is an improvement, but unfortunately the BBC has to be dragged into making these simple changes, almost like bringing it from the latter part of the previous century into the 21st century. A simpler approach would be for the BBC to say at the end of the year how much every presenter who undertakes external appointments earned in total—did they earn £565, £10,400, or much more? That would be a much simpler approach, because there are hundreds of these references in the BBC’s register.
I will now move to an issue that is even more significant than external events: the commissioning of programmes for the BBC. In Northern Ireland and across the UK, we have a flourishing independent media sector. It is right and proper that we help to promote the people—young people in particular, but others as well—who establish small independent companies and want to get products from those companies on to either commercial radio and television, or BBC radio and television, because that is where the next generation of media producers, backroom people and camera people will all eventually come from. However, that small independent sector comes up against a huge brick wall, because in some regions of the BBC, there are BBC personnel who have “independent” companies of their own. They apply for commissioning contracts and, remarkably, are very successful in getting them.
That is very good if there is a level playing field—if independents can apply for those contracts, and people who work for the BBC can also apply for them. The problem is that the level playing field does not remain level. There are a small number of BBC personnel who have their own companies and, when they get contracts and a programme emerges on the BBC, can then use their own programme to advertise their privately commissioned programme that is on that evening. We have all repeatedly heard things like, “You may want to tune in at 10.35 tonight, when there is a programme on”, and then the next day when the BBC presenter is on, someone gets in touch and says, “I really enjoyed your television programme last night.” Yes, a programme paid for by us, the licence fee payers, and advertised freely on the BBC to the disadvantage of independent media companies that merely want to operate on a level playing field.
The issue has not been resolved. After holding numerous meetings with the BBC, the NAO and Ofcom, I was told that an additional safeguard would be brought in to protect and safeguard against any abuse of the system. That happened three years ago, in 2019. If there was a commissioning process that was open to all and sundry to apply for, and an internal BBC person with their own company applied for it and was successful in getting through the various stages, there would be a further stage of approval before the awarding of the contract and that person received the commission.
That further stage is an internal stage. The regional head of the BBC looks at the application—from a person that he or she knows, because that person is in his or her employ, and has received numerous commissions in the past. They have to rubber-stamp the application.
We are led to believe that that is a further safeguard. I do not think so. It is not independent; it is not transparent; and it certainly does not stand up to scrutiny. It has been in place for three years. Obviously, we have had the pandemic for two of those years, so we are unaware of the success or otherwise of that safeguard. I have watched closely and have seen the same small number of internal BBC employees receive a similar number of successful contracts since the safeguard was in place, so the BBC needs to answer the questions.
I hope the Minister can raise these important matters with the BBC. As we all know, there is an ongoing issue. The Secretary of State has made it clear that the BBC will have questions to answer and that, as we go into the future, there is a severe question mark over the licence fee—we understand that—but people are angry and annoyed that they pay for a service that they either do not receive, do not want or cannot opt out of. If they watch or listen to any live BBC broadcast, they are automatically liable to pay the BBC licence fee.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is giving a brilliant speech. I agree wholeheartedly with his points on accountability and transparency. He is alluding to the issue of value for money from the BBC. Many of my constituents have long felt that the BBC does not offer value for money. In a deprived constituency such as mine, they question the licence fee and whether they should pay what is essentially a regressive tax. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Mr Campbell
I do indeed. There is a rising tide of resentment, particularly when the public see matters on the BBC that seem to be quite partisan, whether locally, nationally or internationally. We can look back through the pandemic; we can look at the middle east; we can look at a whole series of incidents.
I remember the infamous time with the BBC’s North American correspondent when President Trump was first elected. At the very first press conference in the White House, the incoming President, for all his faults, said to the North American correspondent, “Who are you with?” He said, “The BBC,” and the President said, “Another winner.” That North American correspondent never forgot that put-down. Every time I saw him on at the White House, there would be a disparaging reference to the Trump Administration. Unsurprisingly, I have seen very little by way of disparaging references to the current incumbent of the White House—comparatively few, if any. I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton). The tension and annoyance of the general public rises when they see events and incidents like that on the BBC.
I ask the Minister to raise these matters with the BBC, because we are talking about public money. There is a system in place that some of us have tried to work within. We know that the BBC is accountable for that money. We have tried regionally; we have tried nationally; we have gone to Ofcom; we have gone to the NAO—but the rationale is slow and intractable, and the BBC is slow to get to the point it should have come to automatically. It should not have had to be dragged to this point—it should have embraced it—but there is a reluctance at the heart of those in the BBC to adopt these structures.
I ask the Minister to enter into his response to the debate with an open mind and an open heart and to endeavour to take these matters up when there are discussions with the BBC, in order that the public, and all of us who occasionally or frequently watch the BBC, can rest more assured that the BBC is accountable to us who pay their very wages.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
It is an honour, again, to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Gary. I thank the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) for securing the debate and for the many important points he, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) have raised. I know all three are frequent commentators on BBC performance, and I know that the hon. Member for East Londonderry has had conversations with my colleagues at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. I will make sure they are aware of the issues he has raised today. My colleagues and I regularly meet the BBC and will be happy to raise the hon. Gentleman’s points.
He is absolutely right; this debate, and the success he has had on the points he has raised, show that the BBC is accountable, as he said so clearly and eloquently, to Parliament, and to the public and the licence fee payers. That is really important and the hon. Gentleman made the point clearly.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Will the Minister continue to raise the issue of the complaints mechanism process with the BBC? In the last year for which figures are available, 2020-21, there were almost half a million audience complaints to the BBC about content. Eighteen resulted in a partially upheld or an upheld complaint. That is a woefully inadequate complaints process, when it results in such a low number of upheld complaints.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I know that he raised that issue with my colleagues at DCMS, including the Secretary of State. He raises important points. Addressing complaints is an important part of the responsiveness that the BBC can show, and the respect it can show to the public, as well as to Parliament. I will make sure that his point is reiterated—I know he has raised it before.
As the Secretary of State has said, the BBC is a global British brand. The Government want the BBC to continue to thrive in the decades to come, and to be a beacon for news and the arts around the world.
There are many things the Government support about the BBC. At this time, I want to draw particular attention to the work the BBC has been doing in relation to the conflict in Ukraine. The value of the BBC to people across the globe can be seen in the brave and admirable work of many BBC journalists who are risking their lives to bring us unbiased and accurate news from a live war zone in Ukraine.
However, the Government have also been clear that there are areas where we want to see the BBC do better. That includes the BBC’s approach to openness and transparency, which is the matter for discussion today. The BBC’s royal charter, underpinned by a more detailed framework agreement, guarantees the BBC’s current model, as an independent, publicly owned, public service broadcaster.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South raised the issue of value for money. On 17 January, the Secretary of State announced in Parliament that the licence fee would be frozen for the next two years and would rise in line with inflation for the following four years. This settlement aims to support households at a time when they need that support the most and sends an important message about keeping costs down and giving the BBC what it needs to deliver to fulfill its remit. The BBC will continue to receive around £3.7 billion in annual public funding, allowing it to deliver its mission and public purposes and to continue doing what it does best. We recognise the important point about money that the hon. Gentleman raised.
The charter also requires the BBC to act in the public interest; to observe high standards of openness; and to seek to maximise transparency and accountability. The public has a right to expect the BBC, as a public service broadcaster, to be open and transparent. The Government believe that this focus on transparency and accountability is a key obligation for the BBC and essential to maintaining public trust. That is why, for example, the Government now require the BBC to publish salary details of all BBC staff paid over £150,000, which was done for the first time in the BBC’s annual report back in 2016-17. The public deserve to know how their licence fee is being spent.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry mentioned the issue of the external events register. In 2020, the BBC announced it would publish a quarterly summary of the paid-for external events undertaken by on-air staff in journalism and by senior leaders in order to promote the high standards of impartiality. The first quarter to be published covered January to March 2020-21. The Government welcome the publication of this information and it is an important example of how the BBC can increase its openness and transparency.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that perhaps he can chalk this up as a success. It looks as if the BBC has already moved to be even more open in the characterisation. I hope that is a step in the right direction and shows that the BBC is listening and has heard the points raised by him and others and will take action. I understand his frustration at having to labour those points, but I think this shows that movement in the right direction can be made.
As we know, unfortunately, the BBC has fallen short in the past in a number of ways. Lord Dyson’s report last year into the “Panorama” interview with Princess Diana shed light on the serious consequences incurred when the BBC does not meet the high standards of integrity and transparency which we expect from a public service broadcaster. Lord Dyson found that the BBC’s broadcast coverage was not open in regard to what the BBC knew about its own activities or transparent enough in response to questions from the press.
The BBC has clearly made progress since the 1990s, when the interview took place. The subsequent review by Sir Nicholas Serota into the BBC’s editorial process, governance and culture found that the BBC was much more open and accountable than it was 25 years ago, but that more could still be done. The Serota review also uncovered a persisting culture of defensiveness at the BBC, especially around admitting mistakes. The review also noted that, as a publicly-funded organisation in a society that is increasingly open, the BBC must further identify opportunities to enhance transparency.
This view is also held by Ofcom, the independent regulator of the BBC. Ofcom has consistently called for the BBC to be more transparent in how it explains its decisions to the public, engages with industry on proposed changes to its services, and in its reporting. Ofcom’s most recent annual report on the BBC’s performance noted that it has seen some improvements in recent years, but more needs to be done. We support Ofcom’s view that it is critical that the BBC holds itself accountable by clearly setting out how it will implement its strategies, measure their success and report on their effectiveness.
The Government have therefore welcomed the BBC’s acceptance of the Serota review’s findings and recommendations in full and the BBC’s publication of its 10-point impartiality and editorial standards action plan. We see this as an essential step in driving culture change at the BBC.
We also welcome recent announcements that the BBC will be carrying out the first of its thematic editorial reviews under the plan of its coverage of taxation and UK public spending. This will be chaired by Sir Andrew Dilnot and Michael Blastland, and the Government look forward to publication of the review this summer.
Mr Campbell
I thank the Minister for the comprehensive nature of his response. In the concluding part of his response, will he detail the issue that I raised towards the end of my speech in relation to the commissioning of programmes, which is an important part of the debate?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Gentleman for reiterating that point. I will come to it in a moment.
Looking further ahead, the Government will shortly begin the mid-term review of the BBC charter, which will consider the overall governance and regulation of the BBC. A key part of that review will be whether the BBC plans for reform have materially contributed to improving the organisation’s internal governance.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the point about commissioning, and in that context he highlighted the incredibly successful Northern Ireland independent production sector, and the overall film and TV production sector in Northern Ireland, which I know; I have managed to visit it a couple of times. It is absolutely incredible—world class—both in front of and behind the camera, which is why so many productions are based there. It is a really important sector, and commissioning and the commissioning process is vital.
According to Ofcom’s annual report on the BBC for 2020-21, published in November last year, the BBC has confirmed it is on track to meet the charter requirements on commissioning—64% of television, 53% of radio and 59% of online opportunities were open to competition. Ofcom notes that progress towards the targets this year has not been as significant as in other years, and in the case of online the percentage of content that is contested decreased. For TV and radio programming, Ofcom understands that the smaller increase is due to the BBC putting some of its plans for competitive tendering on hold due to the impact of covid-19. I will ensure that my colleagues in the BBC hear the other comments that the hon. Gentleman raised earlier. I am sure that they will keep a close eye on the record in Hansard.
Richard Sharp, the chairman of the BBC, has said:
“Trust is the foundation of the BBC’s relationship with audiences and it is more important now than ever.”
I agree. It is for this reason that it is more necessary than ever to rebuild and maintain trust in the BBC among those who have lost it. The BBC has made promising steps towards greater transparency and accountability, but there is more to be done. The Government will continue to work closely with the BBC to ensure that it remains trusted and valued by audiences in the UK and across the world for many years to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Welsh Local Authorities
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the role of Welsh local authorities in delivering public services and economic development.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Sir Gary, and to be able to speak about the record of Welsh local government in delivering public services and economic development. It is a particular honour to do so after two hard years of the covid-19 pandemic, in which local government teams across Wales, not least in my own two local authorities of Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan, have played a critical role in supporting their local communities and in adapting on the hoof to maintain services during some of the most testing times that we have seen for decades.
We have also seen the very best of partnership and co-operative working—I am proud to say that as a Labour and Co-operative MP, and I spoke about the issue in this place not so long ago—with central Government and a range of other bodies, from our local health boards to our schools, care services, police and other rescue services. I can say, hand on heart, that I was deeply moved at a number of points during the pandemic to see councillors, officers and staff at every level working 24/7 to ensure that no one, from our children to the most vulnerable, was left behind. When we look back on this period, I have no doubt that many will conclude that it was their finest hour.
Let me point above all to one key principle: that of co-constructing services in partnership with the Welsh Government and other key stakeholders. That was best exemplified by the success of the test, trace, protect system in Wales. Compared with the complex, expensive and, I am sorry to say, failing system that we saw at times on the England-Wales border, the TTP system was more efficient and effective and, crucially, substantially cheaper. Independent analysis carried out last year by Cardiff University’s Wales Governance Centre showed that the cost of personal protective equipment and test and trace in England was almost twice as expensive as that of their equivalents in Wales. The report estimated that the cost of PPE and the devolved elements of the test and trace system in Wales was £533 million. The Wales Governance Centre’s analysis showed how that was approximately half the amount of consequentials stemming from English spending on test and trace and PPE, which stood at over £1 billion. Those costs were £158 lower per person in Wales than they were in England.
We all know that buried on page 199 of the recent annual report of the UK Government’s Department of Health and Social Care was the disclosure that it had incurred £8.7 billion of losses on the £12.1 billion spent on PPE in 2021. That is a truly shocking waste of taxpayers’ money. I urge the Government genuinely to reflect on how that money could have been used more productively and effectively had the collaborative approach taken in Wales been used across England. When we look at the financial headlines, we also see success when it comes to local government in Wales. Instead of hollowing out and decimating local government, we have seen a revaluing of the crucial services, expertise and local knowledge that local government delivers.
The Welsh Government have provided a 9.4% uplift in funding overall, which in difficult fiscal times is a testament to the value placed on local government in Wales and, crucially, its hard-working staff. Next year, local authorities in Wales will receive £5.1 billion from the Welsh Government in core revenue funding and non-domestic rates to spend on delivering key services. That means supporting our councils with an additional £750 million to provide the critical services that Wales relies on, such as schools, social care, recycling and so on. That equates to an increase of 9.4% across Wales, or £437 million on a like-for-like basis compared with the current year, and no local authority in Wales will receive less than an 8.4% increase, which I am sure Members will agree is substantial given the overall fiscal constraints. That shows what I believe are Welsh Labour values in action, providing support to critical public services and workers who have helped us every day throughout the pandemic.
Among other things, local government will be able to maintain the Welsh Government’s council tax reduction scheme, with the Welsh Government providing £244 million in support to the most vulnerable people in Wales. It will support the major programme for government commitments, including the pledge to introduce free school meals for all primary school pupils in Wales. Social care staff will receive the real living wage in Wales—currently £9.90 an hour—from April 2022. That will apply to registered workers in care homes and domiciliary care, in both adult and children’s services. It will also apply to personal assistants who provide care and support that is funded through a direct payment—a real testament, I am sure, to the work of those staff through the pandemic period.
The Welsh Government are keen that we nurture that collaboration, drawing on that relationship to look to the future. I am thinking about the different models proposed for housing, and the need to think creatively about the future of social care, to be bold in the exploration of new, innovative models of transport and to think innovatively about the urgent need to decarbonise our economy and our communities. I declare an interest as someone who started his career as a play worker and a council official in the Vale of Glamorgan Council, at one point dressing up as Gully in Gully’s Gang, trying to support young children in our communities. I am sure that there are pictures somewhere. I have had direct experience of working in local government in a number of roles in south Wales.
I pay tribute again to every local government staff member across Cardiff, the Vale and the whole of Wales, from teachers to refuse collectors, care workers and highway staff, who all went beyond the call of duty, often taking on new roles and complex, challenging tasks. Particularly in the early stage of the pandemic, before we had access to the life-changing vaccines, they did so knowing the risks that they could be exposed to, even when the best precautions were in place, in order to ensure that a vulnerable elderly person did not go without support, that a child did not go without a meal or learning, and that no crucial piece of local infrastructure fell into disrepair.
I will come on to some of the successes in local government across Wales. I will focus on my own two local authorities and then take a quick canter through the others, but I could not do justice to all the authorities in Wales in this speech. I hope that other Members will intervene and make their own speeches, in which they can go into more detail. I am hugely proud of the work of Cardiff Council, under our leader Councillor Huw Thomas and his team. It has been a record of innovation, commitment and ambition over recent years. The list of successes is huge, but in addition to their remarkable work supporting people throughout the pandemic and their day-to-day delivery of services, I will highlight some other key successes.
A remarkable scheme of council house building and bearing down on homelessness under the leadership of Councillor Lynda Thorne has been truly transformative, with much more to come. I can see those new council properties being built in my own community and in deprived communities that need them. On campaigning and delivering on the real living wage, 40% of real living wage accredited employers in Wales are now located in Cardiff. That means that 8,000 people have had a pay rise thanks to pressure and campaigning from our council. There have been huge and continued redevelopments, from the city centre to the bay in my constituency, including the Central Square area, now home to the new BBC headquarters. UK Government buildings have chosen to locate there, as well as the Cardiff School of Journalism and our new, and promised, bus station and transport hub.
I have seen new leisure facilities in my constituency, including the new Star Centre and pool in Splott, and remarkable new education facilities, including Eastern High in my constituency turning around educational performance and aspirations. There are new green transport links, plans for the metro, and, hopefully, a new Cardiff Parkway station, a public-private partnership in the east of the city. We are attracting and developing new high-value sectors, including film and TV production and high-tech and other future-proof industries, in our cities, and building the skills chain to support them.
I am of course proud to have a constituency that includes not just one but two local authorities, one of which is the Labour-led Vale of Glamorgan. I pay tribute to the leadership of Councillor Neil Moore and the deputy leader, Councillor Lis Burnett, who is one of Penarth’s councillors, for their work throughout the pandemic, and that of their whole cabinet and team. Again, I could praise much of their day-to-day work, but recent highlights include saving the Penarth pier pavilion after a difficult period and bringing it back into vibrant and sustainable public use, and pioneering the Big Fresh Catering Company, a local authority trading company based on co-operative principles in our schools, which has turned a £350,000 deficit into a £500,000 surplus in one year, with that money being reinvested in schools.
We see huge investment at the Penarth Learning Community that turns around prospects for learners on a combined school site. St Cyres School is a part of that and recently celebrated being one of the first schools to be designated a school of sanctuary for its work in supporting those fleeing conflict and persecution abroad. The new food pod scheme, designed to support local communities that faced major challenges during the pandemic and to tackle food waste, is part of the council’s clean slate neighbourhood programme, a two-year scheme to make a key area of Penarth cleaner, greener, healthier and better connected. We are investing in our green and seaside spaces, from Cosmeston to the famous Barry Island, making the Vale a destination for all to visit and enjoy and generate local employment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) could not be here this afternoon—my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) is here—but she wanted me to highlight the work of the Labour-led Newport Council, led by Councillor Jane Mudd. Newport distributed 9,000 laptops and devices to learners during the pandemic, administering £55 million of Welsh Government funding to support businesses. Newport has world-beating recycling rates and exciting plans for economic development and regeneration in Newport city centre. Newport and my own city of Cardiff are leading the way with support for unaccompanied, sanctuary seeking children.
Neath Port Talbot dealt with a series of emergency and crisis situations, including severe flooding in Skewen, a gas explosion in Seven Sisters, and landslips. It is also investing in significant regeneration projects in Neath town centre, Harbourside in Port Talbot, and the Plaza cinema in Swansea, which I am sure we will hear about given the colleagues I can see here. New technology is being pioneered through the Homes as Power Stations approach and through Passivhaus, which creates buildings that use less energy. There is work to tackle homelessness, as we have seen in Cardiff, by developing the former Bryn House community education centre in Uplands.
Bridgend has made a record investment in 21st-century schools, renewed sea defences, and cultural regeneration, including at the Maesteg town hall. In Rhondda Cynon Taf, which I am sure we will hear about, there is free wi-fi in all town centres and investment in town centre regeneration, and a huge amount of work is being done, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), to tackle flood risk and the impact of the terrible floods of a few years ago. Like Cardiff, RCT is delivering a real living wage to council contractors, as well as directly employed staff.
Torfaen is pioneering new and exciting support programmes for dads and is piloting new forms of democracy with advance voting in elections. In Flintshire in north Wales, a £15 million redevelopment of a new care home is being undertaken, with state-of-the-art accommodation to support people. Caerphilly has received awards for its free school meal delivery for families. The approach to free school meals and feeding our children was in stark contrast to the regrettable situation in England, which had to be put under pressure by Marcus Rashford and others. Also, it set up Caerphilly Cares, a signposting and support service for local people.
I could not possibly mention every local authority and location, because I would be here for hours. However, I have given Members some highlights of the really exciting, positive and impactful changes that local government has made both in providing services and in driving economic development in Wales. It is a record of success, impact and ambition under a Welsh Labour Government who value our local services, and Welsh Labour-led councils that deliver every day.
Although I have highlighted the substantial political differences that Labour authorities make, I must thank again all council staff and workers across Wales, no matter the political make-up of their authority, for the services they provide day in, day out, particularly during the pandemic. I should also highlight the role that all councils have played in offering help to the people of Ukraine and in offering to rehouse people fleeing Afghanistan and elsewhere, and also their response to cleaning up after the huge local storms and the damage caused in recent weeks.
I want to end by paying tribute to Councillor Andrew Morgan, leader of the Welsh Local Government Association, and his deputy, Councillor Rob Stewart, for the work, leadership and constructive partnership that they and all of their council leader colleagues provided throughout the pandemic and which continues today. In concluding, I hope that the Minister will recognise and welcome the leadership shown in Wales, and pledge to learn from and partner with, and not circumvent, our local authorities in Wales, which are doing so much good.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
There are five Members who wish to speak in half an hour, so you will have about six minutes each.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. It is also delightful to be in this debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). I congratulate him on securing it.
Across Wales, our local authorities are showing ambition in their commitments to economic development and the provision of public services. My own local council in Swansea is no exception. One of the biggest projects planned in the city is the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, which has been talked about since well before I took my place in this place. After the original proposal was rejected in 2018, the new Blue Eden project was announced last year.
The new project will not only make Wales a world leader in renewable energy innovation, but bring hundreds of jobs to part of a city that has suffered for far too long as the industries for which it was once the heartland have been relocated. Although the Blue Eden project does not rely on any public funding, local government will have a key role to play in helping to develop and deliver the project. It will also be looking to the Welsh and UK Governments for support in doing that.
That project is about global innovation and will put our little corner of south Wales on the map, but today I want to share information on some of the economic investments that my local authority has committed to public services. They are progressive and ambitious commitments, showing the council’s determination to improve the lives of people in communities across Swansea.
My local authority has invested a record £179 million in our schools and education services; committed £5 million to upgrade all children’s play areas across the city, and scrapped fees for local sports clubs to use public parks and pitches; invested £144 million to deliver better care services for vulnerable adults and children; committed £50,000 to provide new life-saving equipment in every community in the city; expanded apprenticeship opportunities and is providing grants of up to £10,000 to support local businesses; invested £4 million to support homeless people, including through the “always a bed” pledge, meaning that nobody needs to be homeless in Swansea; and is providing free bus travel for everyone across the city on selected dates throughout the year.
Those are bold decisions, made in difficult times, but they are the right decisions, putting the interests of people from across the city front and centre and supporting communities by continuing to build a better Swansea. With the bold and innovative leadership of Swansea City Council’s leader, Rob Stewart, it will hopefully have an opportunity to continue to lead on those bold and ambitious plans.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
As someone who had his honeymoon in Swansea—it was a long time ago—I welcome the hon. Lady’s speech.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) on securing this excellent debate. I had the privilege of being a council leader in the past; I know what a difference it can make. In fact, I was responsible for a 26 km electronic tram system in south London.
The council leader in Swansea, Rob Stewart, has great ambitions for a Swansea metro. However, we need the money to do that. I should again make the case to the Minister that Wales deserves its fair share of HS2 money, in accordance with that received by Scotland. That would give us an extra £4.6 billion to invest in our electrified systems. There are only 22 miles of electric rail across all of Wales, despite thousands of miles of it in England.
We have great ambitions there, but we also have great ambitions elsewhere. We have already heard that Swansea does a great job in its core service provision—in education, social services, housing and local transport—but also in terms of culture. The Minister joined me in Swansea West at the brand new arena that seats 3,500 people; Mark Drakeford, our First Minister, was there as well. That will be a great magnet for new investment and a great boost to people who live in Swansea. We have heard about the Blue Eden version of the Swansea lagoon. I knew about the lagoon prior to my election in 2010 when I was working at the Environment Agency Wales; at last, despite the blockages from the UK Government in providing the money, Blue Eden, its new rendition, is moving forward without Government support.
At a time when energy prices are rising, climate change is accelerating and we can see what is happening in Ukraine in terms of the need for energy security, it is imperative that we redouble our efforts to invest in clean, green alternatives, as opposed to fracking. In Swansea 62% of people are recycling, compared with 30% in north London, which is also building a new incinerator. I am very proud that my colleague the Minister for Climate Change in the Senedd, Julie James, has announced a moratorium on new incineration in Wales. That is something that England should take forward.
We saw the great work that local authorities did during the pandemic—in Swansea, Cardiff and throughout Wales—by looking after people in great need and providing food for people who were isolated, as well as by providing business support. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth mentioned the waste of money in England; strangely, we got the Barnett consequential of that, so we had more money to give to our local businesses. Local businesses therefore got much more support in Wales than they did in England, because we used local authorities and health authorities rather than mates in the private sector. For Ukraine, Swansea is a city of sanctuary. We are a nation of sanctuary in Wales, and we look forward to having the resources and the opportunity to open our hearts and homes to the people of Ukraine.
We need our fair share of money. I have mentioned the transport money, but in addition to that we have had a freeze over the last 10 years of austerity. Had the income of the Welsh Government grown in accordance with the economy, we would have had £2 billion to £3 billion more. We are set to lose something like £1 billion in EU funding. The Minister may talk about a mix of cash flow and the amount allocated per year, but the reality is that we are not seeing the money that we saw before. We look forward to getting the shared prosperity fund at the level that was promised. We welcomed levelling up, but it is small beer compared with the huge numbers that we are talking about. We want a fairer future. I am pleased that the £10 minimum living wage, which has been enabled in Swansea, will help a fair deal at a time when benefits are going up by only 3.2% when inflation is set to be 8% by next April.
In Swansea and across Wales, Welsh Labour is striving to achieve and deliver a stronger, fairer and greener future. I welcome what it is doing, and I am privileged to congratulate the local governments across Wales and in particular in Swansea.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I thank my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for securing this important debate.
It is important that we shout loudly and proudly about the work that our local councils do across Wales. I am obviously going to speak about Newport City Council. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) is unable to be here, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth has alluded to. However, she is very keen that we put Newport City Council, its leader Jane Mudd and all her cabinet colleagues on the map. I was not going to speak today—I was just going to intervene—but when I was reminded that Newport became a city 20 years ago this month, I thought it was important that I speak about that.
Throughout the pandemic, our local government have stepped up to the plate and shown how important their work is—certainly in Newport. They kept the children of key workers in school to enable them to go out to do vital work in retail, in track and trace, and in hospital settings. The local council, by providing those key services, put in place infrastructure to enable other people to get on with vital work.
Further services included homing the homeless during the pandemic. Newport City Council has a designated caseworker who works with those who are more difficult to reach and maybe not so willing to engage with local services. That person is doing a brilliant job of bringing people in and getting appropriate services to vulnerable people who might need additional care. That is a really good service provided in Newport.
Recycling has already been mentioned. In Wales, we are proud to be the second best recyclers in the world—we are happy to give England some lessons on how that should be done. We have integrated recycling that goes across local authorities, allowing each local citizen to play their part by putting out the right recycling.
In Newport we are also very conscious of air pollution. Our local council leader, Jane Mudd, has been very bold and we now have a fleet of electric buses, which are all part of our integrated public transport. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) said, we have free travel for all in March. That is brilliant —people can get the bus for free.
Newport City Council undertook a “Stand with Ukraine” rally on Sunday, where I was privileged to stand with Jane Mudd, our leader, to say that Newport is a city of sanctuary, alongside the whole of Wales. We are looking forward to working with the local council, the Welsh Government and non-governmental organisations, including St Woolos cathedral and the Very Reverend Ian Black, who will be opening their doors to refugees when they arrive.
I nearly forgot to mention that Jane Mudd has been instrumental, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East, in work on the western gateway, developing links across Wales and further afield—as far as Swindon and Reading—to make sure that we have the business infrastructure in place. That will be really important.
Newport City Council does a brilliant job. It works with local people, local organisations, other councils and, of course, the Welsh Government. After all, great partnerships produce great results.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
As ever, it is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Gary. Like my colleagues, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) on securing this important and timely debate.
Local authorities play an incredibly important role in delivering public services, and this afternoon we have heard about the incredible work of local authorities across Wales. The debate has been quite Swansea-heavy, but let me say that I am proud that my local authority of Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council has been leading the way on the long-term recovery from the devastating impact of coronavirus and the unprecedented flooding that devastated my community back in 2020.
However, even with the support of local authorities, we cannot and should not pretend that the last few years have been anything other than challenging for communities across Wales and the UK more widely. As the cost of living continues to rise sharply, it is clear that we cannot rely on the UK Government’s half-baked levelling-up agenda to address the ever-widening funding gaps. That is why I feel incredibly fortunate that the Labour-led RCT Council, led by Councillor Andrew Morgan and the deputy leader, Councillor Maureen Webber, has been bold and ambitious in supporting my local community as we transition towards a recovery period.
I feel a particular closeness to my local authority because, like many of my colleagues, it is where my political career began. I first stood to represent my local community of Tonyrefail West in 2012, and I have remained a very proud local councillor ever since. Before anyone seeks to point the finger, I would like to place on record that that position has been unremunerated since my election in 2019.
Despite that, my eyes have always been open to the real impact that effective local authority councils and town and community councils can have on their area. In recent years I have had the real privilege of playing my part in a number of local projects, including seeing a new play area built in Edmondstown, a new school development in Tonyrefail and an all-important speed reduction scheme on Barn Hill. The importance of our local authorities in delivering those everyday services, which residents across Wales truly rely on, is clear for all to see.
In my area, RCT Council has been central to an ambitious regeneration project that will be transformational for our local high streets, which, as I am sure we can all agree, have been particularly hard hit over the past few years. Even with the best efforts of our Welsh Labour Government, it has been an especially difficult time as independent shops that may previously have been completely reliant on footfall and in-person transactions have been forced to modernise rapidly and move their operations online. That is why I am particularly grateful that RCT Council has consistently prioritised supporting businesses big and small through its business advice and guidance hub.
Let me reassure colleagues that the support for local economic development in our area does not stop there, thanks to our council. I am delighted to report that RCT is currently backing a number of ongoing important regeneration projects within Ponty town centre, which will bring jobs to the area as well as strengthen the local economy. The regeneration framework, aptly named Pivotal Pontypridd, began in 2017 when the council first identified Pontypridd as one of its five strategic opportunity areas. While it will come as no surprise that I, as the Member for Pontypridd, welcome this news with open arms, I will do my best, out of respect for other Members, not to gloat too much, though it is very tempting.
This fantastic regeneration project aims to build on the investment that RCT Council has secured and made available for a number of crucial projects in recent years, including the £12 million Pontypridd town centre regeneration programme, and the £14 million project that saw Pontypridd railway station get a much-needed upgrade. Over the past four years, RCT Council has committed to many more projects, which amount to an incredible £115 million investment for our town centre. Those include funding the brilliant Llys Cadwyn, which was completed in 2020 and sits proudly in the centre of our town. That mixed-use development is now home to important businesses, such as Transport for Wales HQ, Bradleys Coffee, the excellent Gatto Lounge, which I recommend for a cocktail or two, and a new library, fitness centre and customer contact point for council services.
In a world where we are used to seeing decision makers at the top of Government change with little warning—perhaps the less said about reshuffles the better—it is clear that our local authorities are playing an increasingly important role in ensuring that local projects such as these receive the consistency and dedication that they truly deserve.
To conclude, that is why it is so important that we shout proudly about the work going on in Wales, thanks to our fantastic local authorities. They play a crucial role and must not be impacted by funding cuts from central Government, not now or in future. After all, it is our councillors across the nation who are often at the heart of fixing everyday issues, which may never reach the inboxes of a Member of Parliament. They deserve our unwavering support at every level.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for securing this timely and important debate. I am proud to work, alongside my Welsh Labour colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), with the local Labour council in Swansea. As has been mentioned in today’s Swansea-heavy debate, it was the first Welsh council to adopt a minimum staff wage of £10 an hour. By doing that, Swansea Council shows how much it values its staff, who are the ones who have kept our vital services running, especially throughout the pandemic.
I pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of the Swansea Council leader, Rob Stewart, and his cabinet members. It is amazing to see many projects come to fruition, such as the new Swansea arena, which I know the Minister visited. I am looking forward to going there in May to see “The Good, The Bad and The Rugby—Live”. Although the Minister knows the frustration of the people of Swansea over the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, he will agree with me that the new Blue Eden project is the innovative and economy-boosting project that Swansea, and indeed Wales, needs.
Last month, Swansea Council announced a record-breaking budget for services that affect my constituents every day. An extra £35 million of funding will go towards record levels of spending in schools and social care, with support concentrated on community-based services, such as litter picking, street cleaning and road improvements. Those are all issues that I am sure many of us hear about from our constituents every day. It is great news that the Labour Government have protected the budget of Swansea Council, allowing it to invest more in the priorities of the people of Swansea and Gower.
The pandemic showed us the huge benefits of spending time outdoors. I am pleased that Swansea Council has introduced schemes to reflect that, with free bus travel over the school holidays, allowing families to make the most of the fantastic outdoor spaces available, whether that is our world-famous beaches on the Gower peninsula or our green spaces, such as Penllergare valley woods. I am pleased about the investment that is going into playground spaces, which my colleagues spoke about. A lot of that is seen in my constituency, such as Gowerton park, Parc Melin Mynach, Bracelet Bay, Pennard park and Coed Bach park, to name a few that are currently undergoing transformation.
One thing that has not been spoken about today is that in 2015 Swansea became the first council in Wales to introduce the local area co-ordination network. Our local area co-ordinators—or LACs as we call them—were invaluable during the pandemic. In the first five months, they responded to over 20,000 inquiries, from picking up food and medication to dropping pets at vets, and anything in between. These local authority co-ordinators who work in my constituency and across Swansea are dedicated to their communities. My thanks go out to them on behalf of all my constituents who they have worked so hard to support. One of the good things about the scheme is that we are showing the rest of Wales and beyond what good practice this is. To see that good practice roll out in other authorities is what it is all about, because it benefits everybody.
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to those cabinet members from Gower who will not be standing again in the local elections, who have been very patient, collaborative and kind to me since I was elected in 2017: Councillor Mark Thomas from Penclawdd, who has been environment enhancement and infrastructure manager—highways, to a lot of us—and Councillor Mark Child from West Cross. We will also be saying a sad goodbye to Christine Richards, our councillor for Loughor and the former deputy leader of Swansea Council.
We know how important our local councils are to us all. Our working relationship with them and with the Welsh Government is key. I am proud to work alongside Swansea Council and look forward to continuing this work post-election with new faces and old friends.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary, and to respond to the debate on behalf of the Opposition. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) on securing the debate and setting out so passionately the excellent examples of local authorities delivering for local residents.
My hon. Friend rightly talked about the level of support and commitment from officers and members right across local government in Wales during the pandemic. He also spoke about the support from the Welsh Labour Government through the plans for free school meals, social care, workers receiving a real living wage, and the significant investment in local government services. He highlighted the good work in Cardiff Council and the Vale of Glamorgan Council with a stellar list of achievements across the two authorities in regeneration, transport, dealing with food poverty and many other issues.
Local government has always played a huge role in delivering frontline services. I know that only too well from my 20 years as a county councillor before being elected to Parliament. However, it is fair to say that the role of councillors and councils, as we have heard a number of times today, has never been under as much pressure as the last two years. By and large, all 22 local authorities across Wales, for members, officers and frontline staff, have really stepped up to the plate and continued to deliver excellent public services for their communities.
Many of today’s speeches have highlighted the flavour of the work done by our local authorities. My hon. friends the Members for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) talked about the good work of Swansea Council, with the new Blue Eden project, which sounds very exciting and will create hundreds of jobs. They also talked about the significant investment in education and schools, the 62% recycling rate and transport improvements. Swansea was the first council to offer the minimum staff wage of £10 an hour.
I was particularly interested to hear about the work on green spaces and sports pitches with the abolition of pitch fees, which is something that the opposition group on Merthyr Tydfil Council, led by Councillor Darren Roberts, have pledged to do if they win the election on 5 May.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) about the achievements in Newport City Council: the multi-agency social work hub; the safeguarding; the western gateway, looking out across the region; and the significant work on tackling recycling.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) talked about the work of Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council, leading the way after covid, storms and flooding affected many communities across her constituency and the surrounding area. That comes from being bold and ambitious. She also mentioned looking at significant improvements in play areas and schools—services that we all know people rely on every day and appreciate very much, as they do town centre regeneration as well.
I know from part of my constituency in the Caerphilly County Borough that the council there has been at the forefront of supporting families during the pandemic, recently delivering its one millionth free school meal, supported by Welsh Labour Government funding and delivered with a real sense of commitment—not, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) told the Welsh Labour conference on Saturday, after
“a last-minute U-turn after a really good kicking from a Premier League striker”,
which was the case in England.
In Torfaen, Welsh Labour councillors are among the local residents who make up the volunteers who ensure that households across Torfaen have access to regular food. Seven days a week, amazing volunteers sort, pack and distribute food and essential items to those in need, as well as offering financial, mental health and physical support across Torfaen. There are now hundreds of high-quality new homes in Flint, together with newly built care facilities and a superb town centre regeneration that has created more jobs and apprenticeships locally, all delivered by the Welsh Labour-led council in Flintshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and I had the pleasure of visiting Flintshire last week.
In Bridgend, the Welsh Labour council has helped more than 4,600 people into work through its dedicated employability scheme, involving free training, supported job searches and CV development advice to upskill and support those seeking work. In Neath Port Talbot, the council has given advice, information and financial support to more than 2,000 businesses, along with administering £47 million in covid payments to businesses.
I think it is fair to say that local authorities are often the strategic partners in projects to support economic development. They are the catalyst and brokers that often bring together a range of partners and stakeholders that deliver holistic projects for our communities. Since devolution, our local authorities have been at the forefront of delivering regeneration projects across Wales—we have heard about many of them today—all done in partnership with the Welsh Government and other strategic partners. That strategic partnership must be safeguarded as the Government here in Westminster move forward with their levelling-up agenda. Wales cannot afford to lose the high level of partnership working and trust that has been built up over 20 years. That is why it is important that the Welsh Government are at the table for discussions and decisions around levelling-up projects going forward.
The excellent record of partnership working in Wales can be further illustrated by the fact that, throughout the pandemic, the leader of the Welsh Local Government Association sat around the table with the Welsh Government to ensure that the response to the pandemic was co-ordinated between the Welsh Government and Welsh local authorities. I pay particular tribute to Councillor Andrew Morgan, who facilitated that role. In addition, the Welsh Government Minister Julie James MS met council leaders on a weekly basis, co-ordinating the response to an ever-changing and fast-moving pandemic. That example of partnership working extended, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, through the Test, Trace, Protect scheme that rolled out across Wales as a partnership between Welsh health boards and Welsh local authorities, which know their communities best and delivered a scheme at a fraction of the cost in England—and more efficiently, if I may say so.
In conclusion, we know that the Welsh Government have protected the budgets of Welsh local government in recognition of the frontline services they have provided. Today we have heard just some examples of Welsh Labour councils delivering for their communities in the most difficult of times. I and all others offer our best wishes to them on 5 May and hope that we see the return of many more Labour councillors and councils to work with our Welsh Labour Government to continue to deliver public services for the people of Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Gary. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and all other hon. Members in this debate because I find myself in the strange position of actually agreeing with much of what I have heard today, including much of what the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) just said—until the slightly political points at the end.
Let me begin by making a serious point. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth paid tribute to those council workers across Wales who worked 24 hours a day during the covid pandemic and, of course, during the floods that immediately preceded the first lockdown. I am sure all of us went out and saw what these amazing people were doing. I visited people who, as the hon. Member said, had worked literally 24-hour days filling sandbags for people during the floods and had come off other jobs to do that. We know about the unsung heroes, such as the road gritters and many others, who are out there and who will work for 24 hours when the chips are down and when we need it. I absolutely want to associate myself with all his comments about the wonderful people who work for our local authorities across Wales. We are indeed lucky to have people of that calibre working for us, and we should never take their services for granted. We thank them all.
Hon. Members may be surprised by this as well, but I pay tribute to all local councillors in Wales—not just the Labour ones, of course, but including them—who it has been my pleasure to work with in this role. One or two things that I wanted to say have been mentioned; as the hon. Members for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) said, what a fantastic arena Swansea Arena is—something that Swansea Council brought forward.
When I met Rob Stewart last week, he made it clear that the project was not just about him; there was a whole team behind him. But what a fantastic team it was. As I am sure hon. Members will agree, the moment someone walks in there, they see what an absolutely amazing building it is—it bowls them over. It will be a huge asset for Swansea and the whole of Wales, and I am pleased to have worked with those who played a part in bringing it about, and I congratulate Swansea Council.
I had better not say too much about the tidal lagoon project. We know that there were issues with the previous one. I believe that Rob Stewart is a very capable person. I do not want to say too much in the run-up to an election or my words will probably appear on his leaflets, but he is somebody to be taken seriously. These matters are not for me, but I am sure that anything he puts forward will be taken in that light.
Given that all of us agree that by and large we have very hardworking councillors, there has to be a question as to whether the Welsh Government might want to devolve further powers to local authorities over the coming years, particularly as the Corporate Joint Committees become legal entities and as the growth deal regions take on all sorts of extra responsibilities. All of us realise that centralising control is not a good thing, whether it is in Cardiff or Westminster, and feel that some of the services offered by local authorities might improve even further if local authorities were given even more responsibilities.
It is correct that local government in Wales and across the UK has been at the forefront of responding to the pandemic, leading from the front and co-ordinating the fight against the virus. We want to harness that leadership in our drive for economic recovery, improving local services and focusing economic growth on the industries of tomorrow. That is why it has been a privilege for me to be part of the growth deal projects, and see how local authorities of all sorts of different political dimensions and viewpoints are coming together to bring forward programmes and projects that can benefit the whole of Wales.
One hon. Member mentioned the extra money going into local authorities—I think it was the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi). I obviously welcome that, but, dare I say it, that was made possible only because of funding to Wales through the Welsh block grant of £18.4 billion a year on average over the next three years. It is one of the best ever funding settlements for the Welsh Government—in fact, the best ever. For our part, the UK Government recognise the value of local authorities in leading communities. We know and trust them to make the decisions that are best for their local areas, and we look forward to seeing local authorities put back in the driving seat over programmes, such as the levelling-up fund and the shared prosperity fund, about which details will be coming out shortly.
As I mentioned, we are working with local authorities and other partners in the four Welsh regions to deliver long-term investment through the city and growth deals. We are working with local areas on bespoke investments, and I remain hopeful of a positive announcement on freeports very soon. As hon. Members will know, £790 million is going into the four Welsh city and growth deals; of course, a lot of money is coming from the Welsh Government as well. We have enjoyed working with the Welsh Government and local authorities to kick-start economic growth.
We are seeing the deals produce results. As I think the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth mentioned, just two weeks ago, Cardiff Capital Region announced the purchase of Aberthaw Power Station, with a hugely exciting plan to turn the site into a centre for green energy. I had a very good discussion with Kellie Beirne about that just before the announcement was made. I look forward to seeing hundreds—perhaps thousands—of jobs being created in the industries of tomorrow as a result.
I have mentioned the fantastic Swansea Arena already. In north Wales, I look forward to visiting Bangor University later in the spring to look at the digital signalling processing centre, into which we have invested £3 million in groundbreaking technology to help secure and develop further investment in the regional digital economy. We are seeing the fruits of the growth deals coming to light, from improving tourism facilities at the world heritage site in the Dee Valley to building a new transport interchange at Porth in the Rhondda.
I believe the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) mentioned levelling-up deals. I think I am right in saying that there were three successful bids to the fund in the area, and I signed them off myself. I was surprised at criticism from elsewhere that there had been pork-barrel politics, because one of the only local authorities that did not get any of the levelling-up fund was my own in Monmouthshire—if there had been any pork-barrel politics going on, I had not been very clever at getting anything out of the barrel myself. Of course, in reality, local authorities put forward the projects, which were assessed by independent officials. I was pleased to sign them off and I hope I might get an invitation to come and see them when they are developed.
This is real devolution: empowering local places and making sure that devolution goes beyond Cardiff Bay. As a Government, we look forward to working closely with local authorities across Wales. I have mentioned some. We have not mentioned some of the Plaid Cymru local authorities. I would be pleased to meet many of those leaders to discuss growth deals with them, as well as the independents in mid Wales.
In Monmouthshire, I must mention my excellent council leader, Councillor Richard John, who has done such a superb job of leading Monmouthshire over the last two years. I could cite many achievements—I am sure that Labour councils could learn many things from how things are done in Monmouthshire, such as the superfast infrastructure. Monmouthshire is the only local authority in Wales to run a post office. Despite the fact that the funding formula seems to disbenefit rural areas, Monmouthshire has managed to keep its council tax rises down to manageable levels. That is not to underestimate the achievements of other local authorities across Wales.
Geraint Davies
On the point of levelling up and pork-barrel politics, will the Minister try to clarify the criteria for levelling-up grants? In the past, obviously, the EU funding was needs-based and focused on lifting productivity in areas of deprivation. We would all welcome more clarity so that there cannot be any accusations that money is just being given out for political reasons.
David T. C. Davies
I would be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on that matter. The allocation was very much needs-based. The officials involved were completely independent and assessed bids against a series of criteria.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the Minister for the tone in which he is responding to the debate. I wonder whether he could go back to his colleagues at the Treasury and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on an issue I have raised a number of times in the past: funding for dealing with fire and building safety issues in Wales.
When it comes to the funding given through big announcements at Westminster, it has been really difficult to get clarity about what is passed on to Wales. Councillor Lynda Thorne from Cardiff Council spoke with me the other day. We are trying to support residents, but without clarity on the money coming through from the UK Government, it is difficult to respond systematically. Can the Minister raise that with his colleagues again?
David T. C. Davies
I think that is a perfectly reasonable request. It is very obvious that some things are devolved and some things are not. When they are devolved, when the UK Government make an announcement it is only going to apply to England, and roughly 5% will come to Wales. But there are some quite unusual, niche issues on which even Ministers and MPs might not be absolutely certain. If that is one of them, I will be happy to come back to the hon. Gentleman and give a full response.
Before drawing this debate to a close, I want to mention Newport City Council. Newport is my home town, and I congratulate all the councillors there—particularly those who were involved 20 years ago when Newport became a city. At that time, it was a Labour council, but my late father was one of the councillors then, and it was something he felt very passionately about. I am sure all of us who have a connection to Newport are pleased that it got exactly what it deserved.
I thank hon. Members for this afternoon’s debate. I have sought to answer as many points as possible in the time given, and I am sure answers to the ones I was not able to address will be forthcoming shortly. I will say three things in conclusion: first, the UK Government see Welsh local authorities as the leaders of their areas, best placed to take decisions on public services and investment to drive growth and jobs. I have had the pleasure of meeting, eating with and working with leaders from all the major political parties except the Liberal Democrats—that is because there are no Liberal Democrat leaders in Wales. It has been a pleasure and a joy to do so, and I have found that they all want to put their constituents first, rather than party politics.
Secondly, the UK Government believe in devolution, but that devolution reaches beyond Cardiff Bay. Apparently the Welsh Government think the same way, so we are looking forward to more powers being devolved to local authorities over the coming years. Thirdly and finally, these are clearly very turbulent times, and it is more important than ever that we remain focused on the long game, with Welsh local authorities working with Welsh businesses and civic society to deliver a prosperous, levelled-up Wales. Wales needs its two Governments working hand in glove, and it is time for the Welsh Government to work with us, not oppose for the sake of it. The Secretary of State for Wales and I would really like a warm, constructive relationship with the Welsh Government, co-operating and collaborating in order to secure the future prosperity of Wales. Thank you very much; diolch yn fawr.
Stephen Doughty
It has been a fantastic debate, with some great contributions from colleagues. It is a shame that we did not have some colleagues from other parts of Wales present, but we did try to get in points relating to a number of the other local authorities, including in north Wales and elsewhere. It is important to recognise their contribution, and that of their staff and councillors.
Suffice it to say that during the pandemic we have seen the best of our local authorities in Wales, but not only that: going forward, our local authorities are setting out a hugely ambitious and optimistic agenda. They are innovating, particularly in relation to the greening of our towns and cities and our economy going forward, and the new industries and technologies that will be the bedrock of the future Welsh economy and the future of jobs and opportunities for our young people. Thank you again for chairing the debate, Sir Gary, and thank you to all colleagues and the Minister for participating today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the role of Welsh local authorities in delivering public services and economic development.
Written Statements
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Infected Blood Compensation Framework
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)
On 20 May 2021, the Government announced the appointment of Sir Robert Francis QC to carry out a study to look at options for a framework for compensation for people infected and affected by infected blood, and it was agreed that the study would report back to the Government before the independent Infected Blood Inquiry reports.
I am pleased to confirm that Sir Robert delivered his report to me on 14 March. Sir Robert completed the comprehensive and detailed study in a timely fashion, and I would like to thank Sir Robert and his team for the careful and sensitive way they have worked. I would also like to thank all those who contributed to the study, sharing their experiences and views with Sir Robert. I know this must have been very difficult for many. I am grateful for their valuable contributions.
I will now carefully consider Sir Robert’s findings and recommendations. It is my intention to publish the study and the Government response, in time for the inquiry and its core participants to consider them before Sir Robert gives evidence to the inquiry. I will write in due course to Sir Brian Langstaff, the chair of the inquiry, about our plans for responding and publication.
[HCWS681]
Independent Panel on Ring-fencing and Proprietary Trading: Final Report
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
Today I have laid before Parliament the final report on behalf of the Independent Panel on Ringfencing and Proprietary Trading. In 2020, the Treasury appointed an independent panel1—first to review the operation of the legislation related to ring-fencing; and secondly to review banks’ proprietary trading activities, following a statutory report from the Prudential Regulation Authority published in September 20202. Given the inherent links between the structure of the banking sector and proprietary trading activities, the Treasury appointed a single panel to conduct both reviews.
The ring-fencing regime was introduced in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, following recommendations from the Independent Commission on Banking in 2011, to strengthen the resilience of the UK banking sector. The regime, which came into force in January 2019, separates core retail banking services from investment banking activities, with the aim of protecting depositors from riskier activity conducted outside of the ringfence or in the wider financial system.
Following Brexit, the Government have the opportunity to develop an approach to financial regulation that better suits our markets, while maintaining high standards, fostering competition, and boosting international competitiveness.
The Treasury welcomes the panel’s comprehensive set of recommendations. The Treasury will establish a taskforce with the Bank of England with immediate effect to assess the panel’s recommendations and options for taking them forward and will publish a Government response later this year.
This report is published at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-panel-on-ring-fencing-and-proprietary-trading-final-report and copies are available in the Vote Office.
1 Terms of reference for the Panel’s appointment:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/members-of-the-ring-fencing-and-proprietary-trading-independent-review-panel-announced-and-terms-of-reference-for-the-review-published/independent-reviews-of-ring-fencing-and-proprietary-trading-terms-of-reference
2 https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/prudential-regulation/publication/2020/proprietary-trading-review
[HCWS683]
Visits Abroad: Correction
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
Today I have made an online correction to parliamentary question 119455 answered on 10 February 2022.
Due to an administrative error incorrect data was reported in relation to my visit to the US in July 2021.
The total cost to the public purse of my overseas accommodation, meals, visas and other expenses excluding travel between 11 and 23 July 2021 was £6,687.68 and not as previously reported £1,766.68. This has now been corrected.
[HCWS685]
National Lottery Update
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Chris Philp)
The Gambling Commission has today announced the outcome of its competition to run the 4th National Lottery licence, covering the 10-year period from 2024 to 2034. In accordance with relevant legislation, this decision has been made by the Gambling Commission’s Board. DCMS and Ministers have not been involved in the decision-making process.
Today’s announcement marks an important moment in the history of the National Lottery, which has raised over £45 billion for good causes across the United Kingdom since its launch in 1994. The National Lottery has made over 660,000 individual grants to communities and to the arts, heritage and sports sectors. In recent years this included over £1.2 billion to support the UK’s Covid response and recovery.
The 4th National Lottery licence competition was launched by the Gambling Commission in August 2020. Following extensive market engagement, the Commission received four final applications to operate the licence—the highest number since the first licence was awarded in 1994. Following a thorough evaluation process, the Commission has chosen Allwyn Entertainment Ltd. as the preferred applicant to operate the licence and Camelot UK Lotteries Ltd. as the reserve applicant. Pending a legal standstill period, which will last for at least 10 days, Allwyn Entertainment Ltd. will be confirmed as the incoming licensee and will, following the signing of an enabling agreement, work with the Commission to ensure a smooth transition from the 3rd to the 4th licence, which will operate from 1 February 2024. The details of the Commission’s announcement can be found at: https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk.
The award of the 4th National Lottery licence is made under provisions in the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. That legislation sets out the roles and responsibilities of the Government and the Gambling Commission and gives the Commission the power to award the licence to run the National Lottery. It also enshrines the principles underpinning the UK’s National Lottery: that it be run with due propriety, that the interests of all players be protected and that, within these parameters, returns to good causes are maximised. These principles are at the heart of the 4th licence, which will see operator profits more closely aligned with good causes than under the 3rd licence, while also continuing to hold the operator to account for protecting players and maintaining the highest standards of propriety.
This award does not change the principles governing the distribution of funding to good causes across the UK, which is the responsibility of 12 public bodies acting as National Lottery Distributors, as set out in legislation.
[HCWS679]
Changes in Immigration Rules
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Priti Patel) is today laying before the House a statement of changes in immigration rules.
The main changes are as follows:
We have made changes to the immigration rules which will implement the plan for growth measures, including the launch of the new Global Business Mobility route, High Potential Individual (HPI) route and Scale-up route.
The sponsored Global Business Mobility route will simplify the UK immigration offer for business by bringing together, reforming and expanding various business mobility routes. It will provide routes for the following:
Senior executives and specialists undertaking temporary assignments at a UK branch or subsidiary of the business they work for—replacing the intra-company transfer route;
Graduate trainees undertaking a placement in the UK as part of a structured training programme—replacing the intra-company graduate trainee route;
Teams of workers sent to establish a new branch or subsidiary of an overseas business—replacing the sole representative provisions in the representative of an overseas businesses route;
Service suppliers undertaking work covered by one of the UK’s commitments on trade in services—replacing the service supplier provisions in the temporary work international agreement route; and
A brand-new provision for secondments to UK businesses in connection with high value contracts for goods or investment.
The Global Business Mobility route represents a world-leading offer for businesses. For the first time, teams of workers will be able to undertake assignments connected to a business’s expansion to the UK, thereby facilitating inward investment, while the new provision for secondments is a world-first in enabling collaboration between UK and international businesses. These new and reformed routes will make mobility across the UK border as frictionless as possible, while at the same time ensuring international trade serves the interests of British workers and our economy.
Delivering on the Government’s commitment to build back better, we are launching two new immigration routes, the Scale-up and High Potential Individual routes. These routes will provide UK businesses access to a more flexible pool of highly skilled workers.
The Scale-up route recognises the benefits these high-growth businesses offer to the UK and the need to ensure they are fully supported in maintaining this growth at a key time.
Unlike other sponsored routes, the Scale-up route will only require individuals to be sponsored for the initial six months on the route. This will therefore enable UK businesses to compete for the internationally sought after, highly skilled workers they need to take these important high-growth businesses from strength to strength.
To ensure the Scale-up route is an attractive offer for this much sought-after cohort, it will allow for extensions of stay and settlement. To qualify, individuals must demonstrate, through a minimum level of PAYE earnings, they are employed in graduate level occupations.
The new High Potential Individual route will make it as simple as possible for internationally mobile individuals who demonstrate high potential to come to the UK. It will be open to those graduating from top global non-UK universities, who hold a recently awarded degree, equivalent to a UK Bachelor’s or postgraduate degree. It will enable those who have already demonstrated their potential through academic achievement to come to the UK without a prior job offer. This will be a highly selective route with graduates of a limited number of universities eligible. The Home Office will update the list of eligible universities annually. Those granted will be given a two-year work visa—three-year for those with a PhD—and will be permitted to move into other long-term employment routes, subject to meeting the eligibility requirements. This route will support UK employers by enhancing the pool of the highly talented individuals available to UK businesses, by complementing the existing graduate route which allows a period of post-study work for international students graduating from UK universities.
To ensure the Global Talent visa continues to allow those at the very top of their professions a smooth application process, in consultation with our Global Talent endorsing bodies, we have further expanded the list of prestigious prizes which allow applicants to qualify without needing to apply for a separate endorsement decision.
We are also introducing a reformed route for settlement family life. This route applies to partners and parents who must complete a 10-year qualifying period in the UK before qualifying for settlement. People who have a 10-year qualifying period for settlement as a partner or parent begin to qualify for settlement in July 2022—the 10-year route started in July 2012 when Appendix FM was introduced—and the changes ensure they benefit from simplified rules.
We are also introducing a reformed private life route. This route introduces a number of changes for children and young people, including bringing the concession on early settlement, introduced on 20 October 2021, into the rules. It means children and young adults who have spent half their life in the UK can be granted settlement after a five-year qualifying period, rather than 10 years. This allows for a child who was born in the UK and who spent their first seven years here to qualify for immediate settlement. The reformed private life route also clarifies that where an adult has permission on this route, their children born in the UK during the parent’s time on the route can qualify for permission as the parent’s dependants. These rules allow for increased flexibility for applicants to count time on other routes to settlement towards their qualifying period, meaning when a person’s circumstances change their qualifying period for settlement does not have to start again. The changes also ensure an applicant with a criminal conviction resulting in a sentence of 12 months or more cannot qualify for settlement, and they make clear, where a person has breached other suitability rules but nevertheless been granted permission to stay in the UK, they must complete a 10-year qualifying period, and at least five years showing compliance since the breach, before they can qualify for settlement.
The changes to the private life route also aim to ensure applicants on the private life route benefit from simplified rules.
Changes are also being made in respect of the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS), which enables EEA and Swiss citizens resident in the UK by the end of the transition period, and their family members and the family members of certain British citizens returning with them from the EEA or Switzerland, to obtain the UK immigration status they need to continue living in the UK. Some changes are also being made in respect of the EUSS family permit, which enables relevant family members to travel to the UK.
In particular, these changes reflect the concession arrangements in place outside the rules for an EUSS family permit to be issued in place of an EEA family permit in certain circumstances. These arrangements reflect the closure of the EEA family permit route after 30 June 2021 and enable those covered by them to apply to the EUSS following their arrival in the UK.
The changes also enable a dual British and EEA citizen who exercised free movement rights in the UK before acquiring British citizenship and who has retained their EEA nationality of origin—known as a “Lounes” dual national, in line with EU case law—to sponsor relevant family members under the EUSS and the EUSS family permit in some additional circumstances. These are where the dual national acquired British citizenship without having met free movement requirements to have held comprehensive sickness insurance in the UK as a student or self-sufficient person.
There are also changes on validity of applications and about variation of applications.
Finally, the seasonal worker route is being expanded to include roles in ornamental horticulture, to support our distinguished flower growers in the UK. A new minimum hourly pay requirement has been added to the route to require that all workers will be paid at least £10.10 per hour. This will be equal to the minimum hourly rate that those applying on the skilled worker route are required to meet to discourage poor conditions often seen in the sector.
[HCWS680]
Trade Update
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
On 14 March 2022, the Government announced that they will take action to deny Russia’s entitlement to Most Favoured Nation tariff access to our economy for hundreds of imports, adding a 35-percentage-point tariff increase on £900 million-worth of imported goods from Russia and Belarus, including vodka and antiques—tariffs increasing from 0% to 35%. This is a balanced starting point with room to go further in due course. The UK will also ban exports of luxury goods to Russia in lockstep with our G7 allies. The export ban will affect goods such as luxury vehicles, high-end fashion and works of art.
We want to maximise the harm to the Putin war machine, while minimising the impact on UK businesses, as G7 leaders unite to unleash a fresh wave of economic sanctions on Moscow. In particular, the ban will make sure oligarchs and other members of the elite, who have grown rich under President Putin’s reign and support his illegal invasion, are deprived of access to luxury goods and assets.
Denying Russia access to Most Favoured Nation treatment and applying additional tariffs will restrict Russian imports to the UK. We will target imports from Belarus with the same measures, in line with the evolving sanctions position, and to prevent circumvention of Russian-origin goods. The UK Government reaffirms our commitment to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), working closely with others in taking action to ensure those who do not respect the rules-based international order cannot benefit from it.
These new measures will further tighten the growing economic pressure on Russia and ensure the UK is in line with sanctions imposed by our allies.
Secondary legislation to implement this decision will be laid before Parliament under the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 as soon as possible.
[HCWS677]
UK Export Finance Update
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
The Government are appalled by the unprovoked, barbaric and brutal invasion of Ukraine and will continue to stand strong in supporting Ukraine through both significant economic and humanitarian assistance.
Due to the effects of the Russian aggression, I was advised by UK Export Finance’s (UKEF) Accounting Officer that in his view, the risks involved in the provision of UKEF support in Ukraine no longer met UKEF’s normal underwriting criteria. However, the Government have concluded it is in the national interest for UKEF support to remain available to facilitate the continuation of UK exports to Ukraine. I have, therefore, instructed UKEF to remain open for cover in Ukraine within an overall market appetite of £3.5 billion and to make appropriate arrangements accordingly.
I have also instructed UKEF to cease cover for Russia and Belarus and, as a result, UKEF support for exports to, and investments in, these countries has now been withdrawn.
[HCWS678]
Criminal Legal Aid Proposals
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)
The pandemic has been exceptionally challenging for our justice system. We owe our whole legal profession—solicitors, barristers, chartered institute executives, and judiciary and court staff—a debt of gratitude for keeping the wheels of justice turning over the last two years.
Thanks to their immense efforts, we are making progress in tackling the court backlog, and getting back to a more normal way of working—in the interests of victims, witnesses and the wider public.
As Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, I am committed to making sure our world-class justice system is put on a stable footing for the future, for the benefit of victims, defendants and the whole of society, which is why I am today announcing the launch of the Government’s response to the Criminal Legal Aid Independent Review (CLAIR) and the means test review consultation for both criminal and civil legal aid.
I would like to thank Sir Christopher Bellamy for his thorough, invaluable report—along with his panel of experts, and everyone who contributed their views as well as all of those who contributed to the means test review.
These two consultations address the recommendations made by Sir Christopher Bellamy and his advisory panel and the review of the legal aid means test launched in 2019. The Government’s response to CLAIR reflects the whole system approach taken in that review.
My proposals include an uplift of almost all criminal legal aid fees for criminal defence practitioners by 15% as soon as possible. This would inject an additional £115 million p.a. at steady state. A further £20 million p.a. is being held for other proposals including:
a reformed litigators graduated fee scheme which pays solicitors in the Crown court,
investment in work in the youth court, and
grants for training contracts and for solicitor advocates to gain rights of audience in the Crown court to support the sustainability and development of solicitors’ practice.
These proposals bring the total investment to £135 million p.a. at steady state, in line with Sir Christopher’s recommendations.
With the Government’s additional funding to support court recovery, this will take taxpayer funding of criminal legal aid to £1.2 billion p.a., the highest level in a decade.
And, in the short term, our proposed cash injection will give a 15% boost to fees for police station work, magistrates court work, the work of advocates in the Crown court, most of the work of litigators in the Crown court, solicitors in very high cost cases, and some smaller schemes.
CLAIR made a number of recommendations non-fee recommendations about the future of criminal legal aid, and in line with these we are also making proposals including:
to reform fee schemes, so they reflect the way our legal professions work including increased work outside of trials and new practice like pre-recorded evidence;
to explore new ways of delivering remote legal advice in police stations;
to work with the professions and regulators on how, together, we can promote greater diversity across the system—opening up a career in law to anyone with the talent to succeed, regardless of their background;
to establish an advisory board bring together information and real experience from the front line to inform Ministers’ decision making on legal aid policy;
to remove barriers to the work of members of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives who do not enter the profession through traditional routes; and,
to support training contracts for criminal solicitors and grants for solicitors to train to represent clients in the Crown courts and above as solicitor advocates.
Investment and reform will make the fee structures better reflect work done and will improve the efficiency of the criminal legal aid system by incentivising early engagement and resolution where appropriate.
They will reinforce a more sustainable market, with publicly funded criminal defence practice seen as a viable, long-term, career choice, attracting the brightest and best from all backgrounds—a pipeline for the judges of tomorrow.
The proposals will put criminal legal aid on a sustainable and stable footing for many years to come—underpinning an effective and robust justice system that will benefit victims of crime, and everyone in our society who relies on it.
On the means test review, I am proposing a wide suite of changes to ensure continued access to justice. These include:
increasing income and capital thresholds for legal aid eligibility, meaning that 3.5 million more people will be eligible for criminal legal aid in the magistrates’ court and 2 million more people will be eligible for civil legal aid;
removing the upper income threshold for legal aid at the Crown court, meaning that all Crown court defendants will be eligible for legal aid;
excluding assets from the means test where they are the subject matter of the case, making it easier for domestic abuse victims to access legal aid;
removing the means test for three areas of civil legal aid: civil representation for under-18s, civil representation for parents or those with parental responsibility facing the withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatment from their child, and legal help for inquests involving a potential breach of rights under the ECHR (within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998) or where there is likely to be a significant wider public interest in the individual being represented at the inquest.
These measures aim to improve the operation of the whole criminal defence market and the justice system. They are designed to make the criminal justice system more efficient—particularly around new technology—and to make the criminal defence market more sustainable. The consultations will run for 12 weeks, after which the Government will consider responses in detail and formulate our response.
[HCWS684]
Outdoor Weddings and Civil Partnerships
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
On 20 December 2021, the Government launched a public consultation on outdoor weddings and civil partnerships. The consultation sought views on the Government’s proposals to continue to permit outdoor civil marriages and civil partnerships on approved premises, and to permit outdoor religious marriages in the grounds of places of worship. I am writing to inform Members of the publication of the consultation response on outdoor weddings and civil partnerships and laying of the resulting statutory instrument (SI). The consultation sought views on the Government’s proposals to continue to permit outdoor civil marriages and civil partnerships on approved premises, and to permit outdoor religious marriages in the grounds of places of worship.
Since 1 July 2021, couples have been able to have their civil marriage and civil partnership proceedings in the open air, in the grounds of buildings such as stately homes and hotels which are approved or become approved for these civil ceremonies. Previously, these proceedings could only take place indoors or otherwise within permanently immovable structures. These outdoor ceremonies were made possible because the Government laid a temporary SI putting in place these flexibilities, in order to give couples more choice and flexibility in the setting, and to support the wedding and civil partnership sector. However, that SI has effect only until the end of 5 April 2022. The Government are now laying this further SI so that these outdoor civil marriage and civil partnership proceedings can continue indefinitely, thus continuing to offer increased choice and flexibility.
The Government also proposed to extend the policy of permitting outdoor ceremonies to religious marriages in the grounds of places of worship using a separate legislative reform order. This would provide similar choice and flexibility to couples seeking religious weddings and to the religious bodies that solemnise them. The proposals would enable couples to have a greater choice in relation to the location of their ceremonies, and for approved premises and religious bodies to have more flexibility in the locations for ceremonies, should they choose to offer it. No religious group would be obliged to provide outdoor ceremonies, and existing protections to safeguard religious freedoms would remain in place.
The Government have carefully considered all the responses to the consultation. Respondents were overwhelmingly in favour of continuing the provision of outdoor civil marriages and civil partnerships: therefore, the Government are now laying this SI so that these proceedings can continue beyond 5 April 2022 indefinitely.
Respondents were also in favour of the proposal to extend the provision of outdoor ceremonies to religious marriages, on a permissive basis. The Government will therefore take these proposals forward via a separate legislative reform order to be brought before Parliament in due course, as this will require a change to primary legislation to implement.
This reform for continued outdoor ceremonies will act as a stepping stone towards later and more comprehensive and durable reform following the Law Commission’s recommendations, should the Government decide to undertake such reform. The full consultation report, including detailed analysis of responses to individual questions and a list of respondents, is available at: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/outdoor-marriages-civil-partnerships/.
The SI has been laid in Parliament today, to come into effect on 6 April therefore ensuring the smooth continued provision of outdoor marriages and civil partnerships beyond the expiry of the previous SI. A copy of the consultation response will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS682]
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Harrington of Watford
Housing for Older People
Baroness Greengross
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards establishing a cross-departmental taskforce on housing for older people.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, as announced in the recent levelling-up White Paper, we will shortly launch a new government task force on the issue of older people’s housing. It will look at ways to provide better choice, quality and security of housing for older people. This work will be taken forward in partnership with the Department of Health and Social Care and sector experts. Further details will be announced in due course.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does she agree that the integrated retirement community model needs to be expanded and to receive additional funding from Homes England if we are to ensure that older people are given the opportunity to live in appropriate housing that fits their needs?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for the work that she has done in this area in championing this cause. The Government are committed to further improving the diversity of housing options available to older people. We believe that offering older and more vulnerable people a better choice of accommodation to suit their changing needs can help them to live independently and feel more connected to their communities. Boosting the supply of a range of specialist housing for older people, including housing with care, will be key to achieving this aim.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, it has been estimated that some 3 million pensioners would like to downsize but cannot do so because of the lack of suitable housing, with only some 7,000 homes for the elderly being built each year. Local authorities use Section 106 to require developers to build homes for first-time buyers. Could not that section also be used to build homes for last-time buyers, thereby freeing up their homes for families?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My noble friend makes a very good point. The need to provide housing for older people is critical. People are living longer lives, and the proportion of older people in the population is increasing. In mid-2016, there were 1.6 million people aged 85 and over; by mid-2041, this figure is projected to double to 3.2 million. Offering older people a better choice of accommodation to suit their needs can help them to live independently for longer. Therefore, an understanding of how the ageing population affects housing needs is something we need to consider from the early stages of plan making through to decision-taking. On using Section 106 agreements to require developers to build appropriate housing for last-time buyers, I am sure this is something the task force may well consider.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, nearly one in three social housing tenants is over 65, and housing associations provide three-quarters of supported housing. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that housing associations have a voice in the new task force for older people’s housing?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The new task force will encompass a range of views from across the industry, from investment to housebuilders to local authorities, and will be led by Stuart Andrew, Minister at DLUHC, assisted by Gillian Keegan, Minister at the Department of Health and Social Care. All these issues will be looked at. I understand that the first meeting is likely to take place just after the Recess.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, the Government will be aware that, in urban areas, there are still large numbers of older people living in high-rise buildings. Will it be a programme of government to change that?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
As I said, the Government will be looking at all ways of making sure that we have an appropriate housing stock for older people, ranging from supporting people in their own homes to giving them the opportunity of going to live in supported villages with on-site care. I agree that it may not be ideal to be in a high-rise block, but it has to be a matter of choice for the individual.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, will the noble Baroness join me in paying tribute to the almshouse movement and the fantastic work it does on accommodation for older people? I refer the House to my interests in the register. Will she agree to come along to visit the United St Saviour’s almshouses that have been built on Southwark Park Road, of which I am very proud to be a trustee? These are fantastic, 21st-century homes for older people, freeing up council homes that can be let to families.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for raising that issue. I would be delighted to visit. I am sure the almshouse movement should also be feeding its ideas into the task force. It is a special movement that has survived over many years, and I am sure its voice would be valued.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, a home that seems perfectly fine for someone aged 70 quickly becomes difficult as they approach 80. Many are at a loss, and advice and choice are not always easy to find, especially for those who do not have access to the internet. When does the Minister expect the task force to be up and running?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
As I said, the complete membership of the task force, which is to be led by Stuart Andrew, is still being put together. All I have managed to push the department to say is that it will be meeting for the first time shortly after the Recess.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, the task force, which was first announced on 25 May last year, is indeed very welcome. Will the Minister confirm that it will consider all the options here, including shared ownership housing for older people, which is the subject of an inquiry I am currently chairing by the APPG on Housing and Care for Older People? Could shared ownership be the answer for those in the squeezed middle who cannot afford to buy somewhere more suitable but for whom there is no social rented housing available?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Best, in this space. As I said, the task force will be looking at all these issues. The noble Lord will be aware that, in April last year, the Government launched a new model of shared ownership, specifically targeted at older people—it is in fact called older people’s shared ownership. The parameters it set reduced the minimum share required for ownership from 25% to 10% of a home’s market value, so lowering the cost of the deposit required. It introduced new staircasing arrangements to make it easier for a homeowner to purchase more of their home, and implemented a new tenure initial repair period, during which the housing provider is required to support homeowners in new-build homes with the cost of maintenance and repairs. We also extended the minimum lease term from 99 years to 990 years, which will prevent homeowners having to pay to extend their lease.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, a couple of years ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and I were on the Intergenerational Fairness and Provision Select Committee and we took evidence from the late Sir John Hills, who said that there was enough housing stock in the country if it were used better. We also took evidence from organisations such as Homeshare, which promotes the opportunity for older people to stay in their own home for longer, which is what they want, with a young person living with them at very minimal cost to them both. Will the Government do more to promote innovative schemes such as those which enable older people to stay in their own home for longer?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank my noble friend for raising that question. In fact, there was an article in the Sunday Times a couple of weeks ago about a friendship that had formed between a young student who had gone to live with an older person. In return for free housing, he was providing gardening and shopping services, and two years into the pandemic they are now the greatest of friends. Models such as Homeshare clearly have a lot to offer. Generally, the department thinks it is great to see innovative models of housing which are contributing to our aim of enabling older people to live healthier, independent lives for longer and preserve their independence and connections to the community. My noble friend is quite right: we estimate that there are currently something approaching 3.7 million of underoccupied houses, but many people wish to stay in their house and are looking for a scheme such as Homeshare to be able to do so.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young, spoke of the objective of freeing homes for families. Would the Government consider increasing the incentives for older people to vacate their homes, which are too large for them, to make way for younger families?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. There are a number of barriers to older people wanting to sell their current home. The task force will look at ways to incentivise that. That might be through the tax system or through incentivising more suitable housing to be built locally by housebuilders. For example, in New Zealand, I believe that five of the top 10 housebuilders are geared towards providing home villages for the elderly.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, will the task force be able to consider potentially adopting building standards that would facilitate accommodation for elderly people to ensure that management of their chronic conditions could be most effectively delivered at home rather than requiring admission to hospital?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Lord speaks with great authority. That is one of the reasons why the Department of Health and Social Care is also feeding into this task force. There will continue to be certain planning issues, but the planning system has to provide for a wide range of housing needs. However, we have consulted on both options to raise the accessibility of suitable homes for older and, indeed, disabled people, and we will set out the next steps and the government response in due course. We have already published guidance to help councils implement the National Planning Policy Framework. More detail will of course be announced in due course, and I am aware that a planning White Paper is due to come out shortly.
Payments to Train Operating Companies
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Snape
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the impact on train services of a 10 per cent reduction in payments from the Department for Transport to train operating companies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the department has no plans to reduce payments to train operating companies by 10% and has not assessed the impact such a reduction would have on train services. As noble Lords would expect, we have asked operators to provide credible, efficient and sustainable business plans which will deliver reliable and resilient train services that adapt to passengers’ evolving needs and drive value for taxpayers.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister accept that the twin attacks of a 3.8% increase in rail fares, the highest in almost a decade, together with any reduction in subsidies—I would still like to know exactly how much the Government are prepared to put forward towards our rail industry in the next financial year—will lead to reduced numbers of passengers travelling by train and more congestion and pollution on our roads? Surely that is not the way forward as regards the Government’s carbon reduction targets.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government are very focused on making sure that the services we provide for passengers meet their needs. Ridership at the current time is around just under two-thirds of what it was pre-pandemic. There may have been substantial and enduring change, so we are working with the train operating companies, asking them to look very carefully at timetables, remove duplications where possible and look for savings and efficiencies. At the end of the day, we need to provide services that meet passengers’ needs, and they need to be punctual and reliable.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, if the Government are not cutting subsidies for the train operating companies, can the Minister tell me why services on the west coast main line have deteriorated so badly over the past year or so? Trains are often cancelled, frequently overcrowded and often late. I never thought I would be saying, “Bring back Branson”, but services under Avanti appear to be markedly worse than they were previously. What are the Government going to do to improve the situation?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
In the broader scope of things, Great British Railways will be developing the whole industry strategic plan; the call for evidence for that has now closed. We are also asking each train operating company to produce annual business plans, which will streamline the passenger offer, make sure demand is actually met and in balance with the supply, remove duplication, as I said, and ensure that operations are as efficient as possible.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
It is clear that government demand in savings running into many millions of pounds will result in cuts in Network Rail’s maintenance budget. We have already seen what a casual approach to Network Rail and the use of outside contractors can lead to in the light of previous accidents at Ladbroke Grove and Potters Bar, and a recent report into the train crash at Stonehaven in 2020 found that a drainage system wrongly built by Carillion, which subsequently went bust, and left unchecked by Network Rail led to the crash. The Rail Accident Investigation Bureau said that the tragedy was
“a reminder how potentially dangerous Britain’s volatile weather can be.”
How did the Government come to the conclusion that now is an appropriate time to make major cuts in maintenance roles on our railways, and will they now reconsider their decision in the interests of safety, which should be the paramount consideration, rather than financial considerations?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Safety is, of course, the priority for everybody who works in the railways, and the tragedy at Stonehaven is deeply regrettable. The Government have no intention of diminishing the work we do on safety and maintenance—it is extremely important—but we must look for efficiencies within the system, because we have seen this significant reduction in demand, we must make sure that we protect the taxpayers’ investment, and that is what we are doing.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, as other noble Lords have mentioned, the 3.8% increase in rail fares simply adds to the financial pressure on families at this difficult time. Does the Minister accept that, now that the Government have ended the franchise system, with revenue from fares going straight to the Treasury, it is entirely in the Government’s hands what policy they choose to use in future to attract passengers back on to the railways? Does she accept that, for environmental reasons, it is essential that lower fares are used to attract passengers?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Of course we would like to keep fares as low as possible, but we also need to support crucial investment and pave the way for financial sustainability for the system as a whole. When we took the decision on regulated fares, we looked at inflation and chose to peg it to July’s RPI, which resulted in an increase of 3.8%. Of course, it could have been much higher had we used an RPI from a later month. We also delayed the introduction of the increase by two months, which was particularly beneficial for those buying annual season tickets. There are other ways we can encourage people back to the trains, and we are doing as much as we can, working with the train operators. For example, the Book with Confidence intervention was extended to 31 March. That allows customers to rebook their tickets if they are unable to travel, without administration fees.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)
Can the Minister draw our attention to any statistical evidence for the notion, which is counterintuitive, that a vicious circle is not developing here between cutting services and raising fares?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I do not accept that at all. It is right that we ensure that our services meet the needs of passengers and are punctual and reliable, and that the contribution from the national taxpayer is appropriate. There will be areas of duplication and areas where efficiencies can be found. The Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail states that in five years’ time, savings of about £1.5 billion should be available after simplification and efficiencies. Those are the things we are trying to drive out of the system. We want passenger services to be as good as we can possibly make them because we really would like people to travel on our railways.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend have a view on the level of unionisation on the railways and what are the consequences of it for the cost of staff and pay?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble friend makes a very important point. All noble Lords will have seen that there is a level of unrest among the unions that represent those working on the railways. Sometimes I feel that their behaviour might be potentially counterproductive in the long term. For example, we have strikes at the moment on the London Underground where, because of the pay deal that was reached a couple of years ago, the staff will be getting a pay increase of 8%.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
Can the Minister explain how raising fares and cutting subsidies to the train operating companies contributes to one of the key aims of levelling up, which is to improve public transport? I ask her to think about Yorkshire especially in this context.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I am always thinking about Yorkshire. The noble Baroness raises an important point. There is an amount of money that will be going into the system, which will be used to service what is at the moment a lower number of passengers. That is where we must get the balance right. We must work with industry to support it on the initiatives and boost demand, also ensuring that the services are there when they are needed. The increase of 3.8%, compared with what inflation is currently, is not significant, given that we could have had a more significant increase had we used an RPI from a later month.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I press the Minister a little more on the question asked by my noble friend Lord Rosser about Network Rail’s costs. I understand from many in the industry that Network Rail has been told to cut its costs by 40% in the coming year. That seems an enormous amount, compared with what it is doing at the moment and the need for safety. Can she confirm whether that is true or completely wrong?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I do not have that figure with me, but I will certainly write to the noble Lord with further details around Network Rail’s expectations for the coming years.
Lord Walney (CB)
Does the reduction in passengers, which the Minister says may well be structural, not further endanger the investment case for HS2?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I do not think that is the case. Obviously there are various scenarios which we consider when we look at HS2. It is a very long-term strategic system. It connects many of our major cities across the country and, provided that we get local transport integrated with that investment with HS2, it will be successful.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
There was an article in the paper this morning about closing many ticket offices. Is this likely to happen? If so, is that a better service for the passengers on our rail network?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Ticketing and fare reform is a key part of what we hope to do with Great British Railways. The leadership there will help with the mass of complicated fares which currently exist. We will be supplementing that with £360 million of investment in fares, ticketing and retailing. We will deliver contactless pay-as-you-go in 700 stations in urban areas across the country, including 400 stations in the north, and we will provide digital ticketing across the network and upgrade ticket vending machines. Obviously we will have to look at the number of ticket offices available, but we will also ensure that people get the level of customer support that they need.
No-fault Divorce
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Deech
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the letter from Lord Keen of Elie to Baroness Deech on 16 March 2020, what progress they have made on reforming the law governing financial provision on divorce to align with the introduction of no fault divorce.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, the letter from my noble and learned friend Lord Keen was sent at the conclusion of the parliamentary process for the divorce Act. In the intervening two years, we have prioritised the implementation of the fundamental reforms of that Act, which will commence on 6 April. Following that commencement, we will consider how best to proceed with the commitment in that letter, and we will announce our intentions in due course.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, the new no-fault divorce law is coming into force in three weeks’ time, but the most miserable and litigious part of it will remain: the law about splitting assets and paying maintenance. That law is so bad that the ministry is paying couples £500 each to mediate and avoid it. The promise was made two years ago to review it; where is that review? Gathering evidence is no excuse for not formulating principle, and I can offer this piece of evidence right away: legal costs eat up chunks of the assets. Unless it is reformed, the no-fault divorce law will fail to achieve its aims. Will the Minister assure the House that vested interests are not blocking reform, and will he give a timetable for completion of the financial provision project?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I do not make any apology for the mediation voucher scheme; it is important to encourage mediation in family law, as indeed across the civil justice system more generally. However, we have committed to exploring the financial provision aspects of divorce after the Act comes into effect. I cannot give the noble Baroness a timetable, but I assure her that we will look at this as a matter of principle and will not be bowed down by vested interests, whether legal or otherwise.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
Following the reference made by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, to vested interests, I ask: have the Government had representations from solicitors practising in this lucrative area, or from members of the family Bar, to keep fault as an issue in financial provision proceedings? If so, what was the Government’s response?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I have not had representations from those entities, but I dare say that the department might have done. We get representations, frankly, from all areas of the legal profession, and indeed more broadly, all the time. We will look at this issue on its merits. We have set out that we want to make sure that financial matters are dealt with as amicably as possible. The divorce Act will be a very good start and, as I say, we are encouraging it through family hubs, mediation vouchers and many other ways too.
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia (Con)
My Lords, I speak as a foot soldier operating under the current system. I would like to explore with the Minister the redundancy of the current legislation, which is now 40 years old. Society has changed, as has the way we operate, and the rules are so left to the judge’s discretion that there is an industry—I am almost ashamed to practise in it—which fine-tunes, for money, applications for ancillary relief because no one can predict the outcome of such an application accurately. We talk about the mythical mediator, but the mediator has to know what the rules are, because how can they mediate without the rules being clear and explicit? The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and I—
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia (Con)
I would like my noble friend the Minister to be nailed down to a timetable, and I would like to know what that is because—I was going to build up to the question—we are fully welcoming the Act that Parliament has passed facilitating divorce without the end of the financial remedies being sorted. We need a timetable.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure whether my noble friend is a foot solider or somewhere between a major-general and a field marshal in this area of the law. May I gently suggest that perhaps not all lawyers charge by the word? I respectfully say that in this area of law, as in many areas of law, there is a balance to be struck between discretion on the one hand and certainty on the other. You need clear rules, but you also need a judge to have discretion to do the right thing in the individual case. That is what we will be striving for when we look at this area of the law about financial provision on divorce.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, as a former foot soldier who tried a very large number of these cases, I believe it is a far more complicated area than either the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, or the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, has said to the House. I would be very unhappy with a timetable; the Government ought to get on with it, but they need to take a lot of sensible advice before they put forward proposals. That is my suggestion to the Minister.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for that question. Of course, we will take advice from a broad range of stakeholders and others. Indeed, in preparing for today I also looked at the laws in other jurisdictions. Although it is fair to say that, for example, prenuptial agreements are enforceable in Spain, which they generally are not in England and Wales, they are not enforceable if the judge considers that they are detrimental to the children or seriously damaging to one of the spouses. So again, the House will see that that balance of certainty and discretion is so important to try to reach in this area.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said when she first proposed this Question, the whole point was to make divorce, by being no fault, less acrimonious and less difficult. The missing part is the financial aspect. In the current system that creates more acrimony and difficulty, especially when children are involved. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, he said that such a review would take “two to three years”. That plays into what the Minister said just now about how complex and difficult this is, but does that not mean that we ought to make a start as soon as possible? It feels like the ghost of Sir Humphrey is around, with “in the fullness of time”, “as resources allow” and “in due course”. Nobody is asking the Minister to come up with answers now—only to start the review, which is urgently needed.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I hope I have made it clear that we are talking about a matter of weeks once the Act comes into force. We will look at this area very carefully. I know that the previous and current Lord Chancellors are focused on this area. Looking at family law generally, we want to see fewer private family cases before the court and maintain the public family cases before the court. Many private family cases really ought to be resolved out of court, through mediation and in other ways. We will work towards that.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, how have the Government strengthened support for separating couples in preparation for the commencement of this divorce Act on 6 April? In particular, how will they help ex-partners and children cope with the considerable emotion and conflict that being unilaterally divorced will provoke and which might last for years?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, we of course recognise that divorce can be a stressful time for families. We want to make sure that support is there for separating couples. We have invested in family hubs and the family mediation voucher scheme. We also have a Reducing Parental Conflict programme. However, we also think that the new divorce Act will lead to more amicable divorce and will itself take some of the heat out of the issue.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, let us not put the cart before the horse by changing the law before thinking about the most acrimonious part of divorce. Is it not true that a no-fault divorce does not necessarily mean that there was no fault? In which case, is it not all the more important that there is equality of arms between the two people concerned when it comes to mediation on a financial settlement?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, yes: no-fault divorce means that the question of fault is essentially irrelevant to the fact of the divorce. As to equality of arms, that is where mediation is so useful. Families who participated in the mediation voucher scheme tell us that it really took the heat out of the issue as they could sit down outside a court setting and resolve their issues. For every multi-million pound divorce that you read about in the papers, hundreds—indeed, thousands—of divorces go through without too much acrimony, other than the acrimony perhaps inherent in the fact of being divorced. We want to build on what we think is a movement in the right direction.
Ukrainian Refugees
Lord Berkeley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to facilitate trains to the United Kingdom for refugees fleeing from Ukraine.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the Government have focused on ensuring that Ukrainians can access the right legal routes to come to the UK and have no plans to facilitate travel or transport. The Government have put in place a generous humanitarian offer to Ukrainians fleeing the devastating invasion of their country. That includes introducing two new schemes: the Ukrainian family scheme and, for those without family links to UK, the Homes for Ukraine scheme explained by my right honourable friend Michael Gove yesterday. Noble Lords will have received a letter explaining that scheme in some detail.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I refer noble Lords to my entry in the register. The Minister will be aware that something like 3 million people have now fled Ukraine, mostly to the west, I think. The Prime Minister offered 200,000 people to come here and 4,000, I believe, have already been given visas; that was before Mr Gove’s welcome announcement. Does the Minister have any idea how the people are going to get here? On the continent, European Union Governments and the railways are offering free travel anywhere. Some operators are putting on special trains. Will the Government do the same here or are they going to kick everybody out at Calais and make them pay for the joy of coming here through the tunnel or going on a ferry? I hope the Minister has thought this through, because with the numbers coming up it is going to be a major problem that needs planning now.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I accept the premise of the noble Lord’s Question, of course, but I refer him to the fact that we have just witnessed the introduction of my new noble friend Lord Harrington of Watford. He is going to ensure that the measures that are taken are co-ordinated across government, and I am sure that that will be part of his brief.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I spent part of last week on the Polish/Ukrainian border and I was very struck by how many volunteers from Poland and the rest of Europe were transporting people to wherever they wanted to go. It was a kind of open-source transport, way better than any Government could have managed because it was all done by volunteers. It was a very humbling and awe-inspiring thing to see. But I was also struck by the fact that very few of the people I spoke to had any plans to come to the United Kingdom. They either wanted to go to where they had friends or relatives or, if they did not, they wanted to stay near the place where they had left their men behind. Will my noble friend the Minister accept that, whatever faults there have been with our Home Office—and I am the first to criticise its lamentable failures—the issue is not one of transportation, which has been laid on amply.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that contribution. Of course, I agree. A point that has been made consistently throughout this crisis is that people, generally speaking, want to stay as close to their menfolk as possible—and who can blame them for that?
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, will the noble Lord take the opportunity to pay tribute to the brave Ukrainian train drivers and crew who have evacuated 2 million people since the war began on 24 February, even while their trains, their railway lines and their stations have been bombed by Putin’s planes and artillery, intent on destroying refugee routes? Will he note that two days ago a train leaving Donetsk was bombed, killing the conductor and injuring a woman, and was hit just before it was due to collect 100 children from the nearby railway station to evacuate them? Are the noble Lord and the Government collecting the evidence of such incidents to ensure that those responsible for these war crimes will ultimately be brought to the Hague and tried for the things that they have done?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I absolutely agree with my friend, if I may say that: the noble Lord, Lord Alton. The world’s Governments are collecting the evidence, as has been made very plain. I salute the courage of all those in Ukraine and, in particular, the train drivers to which he refers. If I may, I would like to stray wildly from this topic and single out another instance of courage: that of the Russian TV producer Marina Ovsyannikova, which the world witnessed yesterday. My thoughts—and I am sure those of all noble Lords—are very much with her, and I am sure that President Putin would like to know that the world is watching.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I very much agree with the comment about the Russian TV producer. She is a very brave woman indeed and I hope we will do all we can to try to protect her at this distance. Whatever the mode of travel that refugees fleeing Ukraine use, would it not be better if we facilitated their journey by dropping the visa requirement, as other European countries have done?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, on the subject of visa waivers, the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have stated on numerous occasions that we will not be issuing blanket visa waivers in response to the crisis. Security and biometric checks are a fundamental part of our visa process in order to keep people in this country safe. This is consistent with our approach to the evacuation of Afghanistan. It is vital to keep British citizens safe and the humanitarian visa process that was announced yesterday will open the doors, but we also need to ensure that we are helping those in genuine need. We are already seeing people presenting false documents and claiming to be Ukrainians. This is a fluid and fast-moving situation.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I want to ask for help for Ukrainian refugees once they arrive here. Will the Minister undertake to discuss with the Department for Transport the provision of free travel from the point of arrival to the place where they are going to settle initially? Will he look beyond that to a scheme of free travel for the first month or so, so that those folk can start to sort out their lives once they arrive here?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I will certainly commit to have those discussions, but I suggest that my new noble friend Lord Harrington of Watford will be perfectly placed to do that. As noble Lords will know from the letter that was sent by my right honourable friend Michael Gove yesterday, the financial support that will be put in place is very generous.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord opposite makes a valid point with regard to rail travel across Europe, but it is difficult to see how the British Government could secure the co-operation of the railway companies in a co-ordinated fashion. Historically, one of the most efficient ways to move refugees has been by air. Our commercial airlines, such as British Airways, have leased aircraft and the RAF has always been key to doing this. Can my noble friend update us or liaise with the Department for Transport and the Foreign Office to see what steps we are taking? If we are moving women and children, and we know that we are going to bring a huge proportion of them to the UK, the safest and most efficient way would be to get them to various airfields and bring them straight to the UK with a relatively short journey.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that and of course I commend all those organisations which have already offered support of the sort she describes. I stress that we have had to remind carriers that individuals with a free seat still need the relevant visas. However, my noble friend makes some very welcome suggestions and I will make sure that my noble friend Lord Harrington is apprised of them.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, a family is named in Moldova, Romania or Poland and has been sponsored by me or someone else but does not have the money for transportation. If it is all agreed on all sides, will the Government help with transportation?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I have just answered a question along those lines, so I am sorry to disappoint the right reverend Prelate, but I cannot agree that at this point. However, the scheme has been in operation for only 24 hours, so let it develop and I am sure these questions will be dealt with.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
The Statement indicated two stages of the humanitarian visa scheme. The second one concerned the participation of community groups in this country. Is the Minister able to give us any indication of when the details of that scheme will be released?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I believe the details will be released this Friday, which I think is 18 March. This scheme was designed in consultation with a large number of NGOs and the like. Yesterday my right honourable friend pointed out some of the names. They include the Refugee Council, the Red Cross, the Sanctuary Foundation and others. I am quite sure that will be in the second phase of the announcement.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, we will get war criminals to The Hague only if we win. The way to win wars is by having strong armed forces. Are we going to put some money into our Armed Forces? Many countries in Europe have realised that they must now do so, particularly Germany, and the Australians have increased theirs by 80%, whereas we seem to be doing nothing about the Armed Forces, who, to me, seem rather important in wars.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is asking me to stray across departmental briefs, which I am reluctant to do. However, from a personal point of view, I might not disagree with him. I take this opportunity to commend the work of 104 Brigade, which I was reading about this morning. It is involved in theatre sustainment and is currently based in Stuttgart. It is co-ordinating our international military supplies and others.
Scotland Act 2016 (Social Security) (Adult Disability Payment and Child Disability Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 24 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 March.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Early Legal Advice Pilot Scheme Order 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
That the draft Order laid before the House on 19 January be approved.
Relevant document: 29th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 March.
Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2022
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 24 January be approved.
Relevant document: 29th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 March.
Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Disability Assistance and Information Sharing) (Consequential Provision and Modifications) Order 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Offord of Garvel
That the draft Order laid before the House on 31 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 March.
National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 31 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 March.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Callanan, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill
Tuesday 15th March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill 2021-22 View all Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 128-I Amendment for Third Reading - (14 Mar 2022)
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill, has consented to place Her interest, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament, for the purposes of the Bill.
Schedule 1: Modifications of the Arbitration Act 1996 in relation to arbitrations under this Act
Amendment 1
“(g) in section 74 (immunity of arbitral institutions)—(i) in subsection (1), for “appoint or nominate” there were substituted “appoint, nominate or remove”;(ii) in subsection (2), for “appointed or nominated”, in both places, there were substituted “appointed, nominated or removed”.” Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would ensure that section 74 of the Arbitration Act (which prevents an arbitration body from incurring liability) applies to the function under the Bill of removing an arbitrator on the same basis as it currently applies to the function of appointing an arbitrator.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to lead this Bill on Third Reading. As we are all aware, this legislation supports the Government’s important aim of mitigating the impacts of the pandemic. The Bill does this by protecting certain rent debt and establishing an arbitration scheme, which has been designed to balance the impact on both landlords and tenants. It has therefore been gratifying to see the level of support for the Bill across the House.
Turning first to the government amendment, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the RICS for sharing their experience and considering the practical applications of the Bill’s provisions. I said on Report that I would consider and return to a point about the extent to which arbitration bodies may have immunity. This technical amendment follows that consideration.
Section 74 of the Arbitration Act essentially protects an arbitration body from incurring liability in relation to a function of appointing an arbitrator. Amendment 1 would provide that Section 74 also applies where approved arbitration bodies exercise their function of removal of arbitrators under the grounds listed in the Bill. The bodies will thereby have immunity for things done or omitted in the discharge of this function unless they act in bad faith. I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this amendment is testament to the power of remote control over this Bill by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and we on this Bench welcome it. I am interested that the Minister was able to announce on Report that a large number of arbitration organisations had already been recruited to take part in this important activity. To that end, I am surprised that they did so without some assurance of immunity as now offered by this amendment; I would be interested to hear what the expectations of those organisations were, given that it is only now that that immunity is emerging. With that small question, we will support the amendment.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, what I said on Report was that 12 bodies had indicated an interest in applying for this. The process of approval is under way and, no doubt, this clarification will come to light and be welcomed by them during that process.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking noble Lords for their thorough engagement throughout the Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House. As ever, the erudite contributions of your Lordships have given rise to constructive and robust discussion of the Bill and it has been pleasing to see the consensus that we have reached as a result. In particular, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, in absentia, supported so admirably by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, as ever, for his support for and scrutiny of the Bill. It has been a pleasure working with them on this Bill following our previous work on the Professional Qualifications Bill. I am also grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his expertise on arbitration. Furthermore, I give thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Lennie, Lord Shipley, Lord Thurlow and Lord Mendelsohn, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral for their interest in the Bill.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, QC, for his consideration of the Bill. The noble Lord wrote to me recently to discuss the focused eligibility of the scheme, on which I will take a moment to respond. Significant thought has been given to the eligibility of the scheme. It is important to remember that the capacity of the arbitral market is limited and, as such, the scheme that this Bill establishes must be targeted appropriately.
Businesses that were mandated to close were among those hardest hit by the pandemic. Some of these businesses, such as nightclubs, were required to close for over 18 months. Evidence suggests that businesses in the sectors that were mandated to close are the least likely to have reached agreements on outstanding rent. In light of this, we consider it a proportionate requirement that, in order to access the scheme, a business must have been mandated to close its premises, or businesses carried on there, in part or in whole.
I am entirely sympathetic to businesses that were not required to close but were still affected by the pandemic. Alongside the Bill’s introduction in the other place, the Government published a revised version of a code of practice for the commercial property sector. This code of practice can be used by any business to help it resolve disputes about unpaid commercial rent, regardless of the business’s eligibility to access the arbitration scheme. I hope that this provides some clarity to the noble Lord regarding the purposefully focused eligibility of the scheme.
I recognise that the Government have made several changes to the Bill during its passage through your Lordships’ House. I am pleased that the changes have been well received, which is a testament to our shared desire to ensure that this Bill is as clearly drafted and fit for purpose as it can be.
Many of these amendments have been clarificatory or technical—for example, in confirming that an obligation to close either premises or businesses is regarded as a closure requirement—as well as expressly setting out the effect of an arbitral award, including how it affects the liability of the tenant and of a guarantor or former tenant. Minor amendments were also made to Schedules 2 and 3, to clarify the application of certain provisions to former tenants and guarantors, including where an indemnity was given.
However, we have also made more significant amendments, particularly following our extensive interaction with the Welsh Government and in response to the DPRRC’s report. I thank the Welsh Government and officials for their positive and extended engagement. I am extremely pleased that the Welsh Government have felt content to recommend legislative consent and that the Senedd has agreed a legislative consent Motion.
Furthermore, I thank the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for scrutinising the Bill and for drawing the House’s attention to Clause 28—previously Clause 27—on reapplying the Bill. We have amended the clause to ensure that its power is appropriately limited, following the committee’s report. I am grateful for the support which these amendments have received. I am also grateful to the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for raising the immunity of arbitration bodies, which prompted the amendment we brought forward today.
I also thank the stakeholders who will be most impacted by the Bill. These include arbitration bodies, and tenant and landlord trade associations. I emphasise, as I have before, that balance, inclusivity and ease of access are some of the core features of this Bill. The Government have engaged with these stakeholders at great length, including at several round tables which I held myself. They have raised relevant concerns and issues, allowing us to mould this legislation and the guidance which my officials are working on—and that we have discussed in previous debates—to make it as useful as possible. As such, I am extremely grateful for their expert input.
I am also grateful to the Bill policy and legal team which has developed this legislation. This includes Carl Creswell, Charles McCall, Jessica Barnaby, Hamza Shoaib, Radhika Sundaram, Matthew Beese, Geraldine Haden, Jane Chelliah-Manning, Justine Antill, Sarah Machen, Louise Dobrin, Simon Burke, Jahan Meeran, Rachel Campbell, Rebecca Denham, Elaine Anderson, Davy Cowie and Martin Gunther. This is a most impressive team.
I thank my private secretary, Ben Kerindi, for organising and managing me—no easy task. I thank the Leader of the House, the Whips and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, as well as the clerks. Finally, I thank my Whip, my noble friend Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his customary courtesy and thoroughness in handling this somewhat uncontentious Bill. In fact, the Bill has been so successful that the hundreds of thousands of cases which were presumed to require arbitration are now down to either the thousands or the hundreds. They are certainly a reduced number and that is a credit to the Bill.
I place on record my appreciation for the contributions of the “Covid 2”—namely my noble friend Lady Blake and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton—who both provided detailed research, experience and commitment during the passage of the Bill, latterly from afar.
Finally, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in particular for his detailed understanding of the complexity of the Bill. I also thank the Bill team for their work and efforts in getting this Bill in shape. While we still do not know what the term “viable” means and whether there will be a sufficiency to arbitrate, time will tell—time which I have now run out of.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this has been a short process, but an interesting and important Bill. It is important for those businesses which found their entire business model cancelled by something over which they had no control. It is important that we find a way for those businesses to secure their future by sorting out the past. I think the Minister would agree with me that the overriding principle of this Bill has been to ring-fence the debt and then, through an arbitration process, share in the impact of that debt. I am pleased to see that the Minister is nodding as I say that.
The Minister has been sensitive to the advice he has got, and I am very pleased that the Government were able to agree with the Welsh Government on how this Bill would apply in Wales.
There was a period at Report when the number of Bill officials outnumbered the number of Peers two to one. Having heard the list that the Minister has just totted off, I can see that not all of them were there even then—but thanks to the Bill team for the hard work that it put in, and thanks to the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake. Because of Covid and dentists, we found ourselves depleted several times during this process, but I also thank my noble friend Lord Shipley—and, back in the Whips’ Office, keeping the legislative process on track, Sarah Pughe.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their generous input on the Bill throughout its passage through your Lordships’ House. It has been a pleasure to lead on a Bill that has seen such wide-ranging support alongside rightful close inspection. I beg to move.
Elections Bill
Tuesday 15th March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Elections Act 2022 View all Elections Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 96-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (15 Mar 2022)
Lord Holmes of Richmond
“The role of the Electoral Commission: accessibility of the vote
(1) Within 3 months of the passing of this Act the Electoral Commission must publish a plan to ensure the accessibility and inclusivity of every vote, including—(a) how such accessibility and inclusivity will be audited and assured, (b) examples of good practice on the part of returning officers from previous votes in terms of accessibility and inclusivity, and(c) what action will be taken if such accessibility and inclusivity is found not to have been delivered.(2) The Electoral Commission may revise the plan from time to time and publish any such revisions.(3) The Electoral Commission must have regard to the most recently published plan under this section in the exercise of its functions.”
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to begin day two of the Elections Bill, and to move Amendment 20 and speak to Amendments 120 and 122 in this first group. I give more than a nod to Amendment 119, but I shall not trespass on it—I shall leave it to the noble Baroness when she rises to speak.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord True, the Minister, for the time he spent pre-Committee discussing some of the elements around accessibility. He has shown kindness and courtesy and given his time in all the meetings we have had to date. I am also grateful for all the briefing and support we have had, not least from the RNIB.
My three amendments address one simple issue: the accessibility, inclusivity, independence and secrecy of every vote cast. That is simple and straightforward and, I hope, achievable. I shall not give a Second Reading speech, but I shall just give two very brief examples of why I believe we need these amendments. The examples come from the testimony of blind people who, helpfully, got in contact with the RNIB. One person said that when they were voting, the booth was close to the queue and they had to say out loud to the person with them the candidate they wanted to vote for—and they heard from someone in the queue a loud sigh at their choice. Similarly, a second person said that they knew that the person helping them was of a different political persuasion. With the best will in the world, how could they know that that person had voted in the way they had asked them to? That is the purpose of the amendments. As we come to celebrate 150 years of the Ballot Act, the ability of all the electorate, not least blind and visually impaired people, to vote independently and in secret would seem to be something that all noble Lords would want to get behind.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I support these amendments, so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. I will speak to Amendments 119 and 120 in particular, but I must first apologise for not having contributed at Second Reading because of a pre-existing engagement.
I am at a genuine loss as to why the Government appear to have dug their heels in against an amendment along the lines of Amendments 119 and 120, with such an amendment being rejected in the Commons. They claim to have been listening to civil society when developing the Bill’s provisions, yet it is clear that civil society organisations of and for disabled people, while welcoming the new broader provision in the Bill, are very concerned about the dropping of the specific provision for the effective voting rights of blind and visually impaired people. Examples include the oral evidence to the Public Bill Committee given by the head of policy at Disability Rights UK, evidence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and a series of briefings from the RNIB.
No one is disputing the value of having a broader protection to cover disabled people more generally, but why does it have to be either/or rather than both/and—that is, both the more general protection and the specific protection that it has long been recognised blind and visually impaired voters need, albeit updated to be more effective than the existing provision that, as we have already heard, leaves all too many blind and visually impaired voters humiliated when they try to vote independently?
The only argument the Government seem to have is that the kind of specific provision that would be provided in these amendments is, in the words of the Commons Minister in the Public Bill Committee, “needlessly prescriptive” and an “unnecessary obstacle to inclusion”. But the RNIB is clear that this is not so. Amendments 119 and 120 both refer to equipment without specifying what that equipment should be. How is that prescriptive? Can the Minister please explain? Prescription is left to secondary legislation, which can easily be amended.
I understand that the RNIB has been working with the Cabinet Office on how to improve voting accessibility and that officials have met with it to discuss concerns about the Bill. The Minister in the Commons confirmed that they had seen the evidence presented by the RNIB but said:
“We do not expect the outcomes that the RNIB has outlined to necessarily be the case.”—[Official Report, Commons, Elections Bill Committee, 19/10/21; col. 235.]
Why do the Government believe they know better than those with day-to-day experience of the issues involved? That is not a rhetorical question; I would appreciate an explanation from the Minister. If they do not believe the predicted negative outcomes to “necessarily be the case”, the implication is that they accept they might be the case. Surely on the precautionary principle used to justify the introduction of voting identification—which will create its own problems for disabled people, as I am sure we will discuss on Thursday—the Government should listen to the warnings of the RNIB and other disability groups.
In the interests of inclusive citizenship, I hope very much that the Government will think again, accept the spirit of these amendments and bring forward their own amendment on Report.
Lord Kerslake (CB)
My Lords, I would like to lend my support for the amendments in this group. Interestingly, the Bill says that its purpose is
“to strengthen the integrity of the electoral process”
but not its inclusivity. That is a gap that pervades the whole Bill, and we will return to it in subsequent debates.
In this specific instance, there is a significant gap indeed—you have only to read the RNIB briefing to see the extent of it. It identifies the scale of the challenge, with 250 people starting to lose their sight every day, and its serious concerns that the Elections Bill weakens protections for blind and partially sighted voters at polling stations. It seems to me surprising, if not unconscionable, that we will be approving legislation that the RNIB believes weakens protections.
It is doubly concerning given that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has said, there are plenty of opportunities to improve access through technology. There are pilots that have proven to be successful.
I find it difficult to understand why the Government would resist these amendments, which seek to keep the innovation within the system but maintain the protections. That ought, after all, to be what we seek to do here. If the outcome of this legislation is that those who are blind or partially sighted feel that their opportunities to vote independently and in secret are diminished, and that their protections are diminished, something has gone very badly wrong in our consideration of legislation.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, Article 29 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities mandates all countries to
“guarantee to persons with disabilities political rights and the opportunity to enjoy them on an equal basis with others … ensuring that voting procedures, facilities and materials are appropriate, accessible and easy to understand”.
It further emphasises
“the right of persons with disabilities to vote by secret ballot in elections and public referendums without intimidation … facilitating the use of assistive and new technologies where appropriate.”
In November 2018, the European Blind Union published its Report on the Accessibility of Elections for Blind and Partially Sighted Voters in Europe, in which it reviewed the provisions of facilities. It looked at the methods of voting in 45 countries in Europe and emphasised the core values of equality, independence and secrecy of the vote, which speakers have already referred to. The report found that
“paper-based voting in itself is not accessible to most BPS voters. A blind voter is not able to identify different elements on the ballot and independently mark the preferred option or options on the ballot.”
As for partially sighted voters,
“adequate font sizes and contrast values on the ballot as well as magnifying glasses in the voting booth and good lighting conditions”
can help.
Last year, with my limited vision, I could not read anything printed. I could just about read backlit text on a laptop or iPad, but only in reverse-contrast and with the aid of a magnifying glass. In any event, I could not read election literature—not that I really needed or even wanted to do so. I could have voted, I suppose, with the aid of my wife, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, but could I trust her to put my cross against the Liberal Democrat candidate?
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
Thank God. The EBU report is an exhaustive study of the methods used in European countries. In Russia, you can have an assistant to vote in a polling booth; they cannot be a candidate or a member of a political party, surprisingly enough—perhaps the man with the Kalashnikov on the door will suffice. The local election commissions in Russia submit information on the number of BPS voters in the territory and, depending on need, stencils—TVDs—are produced and distributed to some polling stations. It is not difficult, though, if there is only one hole into which you can place your cross.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I rise very briefly in support of this group of amendments. I will speak briefly as I was not able to participate in the Second Reading debate.
Looking at the Bill in its entirety, it is pretty clear why most of the various elements are contained within it. I hope that the Minister will not find it pejorative if I suggest that this is because they convey an advantage in one particular direction rather than another. I look at the provisions in the Bill for blind and partially sighted people and I wonder, “What is it that blind and partially sighted people have ever done to the Conservative Party?” Because, in its existing form, the Bill reduces and diminishes the rights that blind and partially sighted people have in terms of casting their vote independently and in secret.
So why was that? There are various reasons. It could be that, in an excess of zeal to extend the rights of disabled people more generally, somehow this was a mistake, and they did not intend to take away the rights of blind and partially sighted people but simply wanted to put in an additional, rather than a replacement, provision for disabled people. If so, that is clearly a mistake, and no doubt when the Minister rises, he will say, “Yes, it was a mistake and we’re going to correct it”.
The other concern may be that, as I understand it, the Government have lost two court cases on precisely this principle: whether they are meeting their existing obligations. So maybe this is about cost. In which case, I hope that the Minister will recognise that to deprive certain categories of people of their vote because it will cost too much to make the necessary provision is inappropriate.
So I hope that the Minister when he responds will recognise that the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, are entirely sensible—they remedy what I hope was an accidental change introduced by the Government that would diminish the rights of blind and partially sighted people—and that he will accept them, or one of the other amendments before us today.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, I have here a speech in support of the case which has been deployed already with great eloquence by a number of speakers— I think that we are up to three or four already—so I think that the best service I can perform for the Committee is not to read it out. The argument for amending the Bill to underwrite the case for inclusion and accessibility in the voting process, particularly for blind and partially sighted people and people with disabilities, has been very strongly articulated. That being so, it is incumbent on the Government to take particular note of what has been said and respond to the call for reinforcing the accessibility and inclusiveness of the electoral process, in particular for people with disabilities and people who are blind or partially sighted.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, if an amendment has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, moved briefly but eloquently by my noble friend, and now endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, we do not really need to say any more, do we?
We talk about the expertise of this House. Here we have three of our most respected Members, who themselves have overcome so many of the difficulties of being blind. They can speak with a measure of experience that none of us can begin to emulate. I hope that my noble friend will give a very brief summing up and say, “Yes, we accept what has been said by those who truly know what they’re talking about”—and then we will move on.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
We do not really need to say much more, but I think I might try. I want to add a little layer of shame if I possibly can. I would like to know from the Minister why the Government are denying democracy to a section of society. That is exactly what is happening here. If blind and partially sighted people cannot see to vote properly or cannot vote in privacy, that is denying them democracy. My question, first, is: why? Secondly, why did the Government not put something like this in the Bill anyway? We have an ageing population—this section of society is going to get much bigger—so it is absolutely necessary.
The last thing I will say is that, if the Government insist on bringing forward these awful Bills, we will insist on trying to amend them. It is down to the Government. If they do not want to listen to us, they should bring us better Bills.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, it is slightly disappointing that the Committee is having to debate this issue in this way. Will the Government listen? This is not a party-political issue; it is an central issue that is vital for all, so that all are afforded a secret, independent vote that is accessible and inclusive. It is interesting that a number of noble Lords, such as the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Low, and my noble friend Lord Thomas have spoken about their experiences. That is more important to listen to than issues to do with what a returning officer might or might not see as reasonable.
We on these Benches support the amendments, particularly Amendments 20 and 119, because they are about providing a prescribed piece of equipment across the country. It does not matter whether you are in Southend, Sheffield or Sunderland: there should be prescribed equipment, as now, that leads to independent, accessible and inclusive voting.
The impact assessment that the Government have provided points out that the Electoral Commission will provide a list, but it goes on to say that returning officers do not have to buy from that list. We could be left with a situation where some returning officers—I hope not many—see it as reasonable not to provide equipment, and there would be a legal argument that it was not reasonable to provide any extra equipment.
It is really important that there is something about prescription in the Bill. As other noble Lords have said, that could be written into secondary legislation. Amendment 122 from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is really innovative because different equipment will be needed as technology moves on, but the fact that it is prescribed means that it can be changed quite easily in secondary legislation and then prescribed for every polling station across the country.
I ask the Minister, first: what would prevent it being seen as reasonable for no equipment to be required in a polling station? Would that be deemed illegal in the way the Bill is written? Secondly, if you are partially sighted or blind, what would the difference be, whether you vote in Southend, Sheffield or Sunderland, in having different equipment? It should be prescribed, it should be the best and it should be on the recommendations of civil society, in consultation with the independent Electoral Commission, to determine what is required.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this has certainly been an important debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for his extremely comprehensive introduction to his amendments. It is really important to this debate for those of us who are not blind or partially sighted to hear exactly what the situation is for some noble Lords. We on these Benches are very happy to support his amendments. I also thank the RNIB for its time in meeting me to discuss the situation and for its very helpful briefings. The noble Lord also mentioned the RNIB’s work on this.
I tabled my amendment because the Bill provides an opportunity to make some much-needed improvements so that voting is more accessible for everyone. Although that is the stated intention in the Bill, the RNIB and blind and partially sighted Members of this House have raised concerns, as we have heard, that the wording in the proposed legislation is inadvertently—we hope it is inadvertent—reducing the legal protections for blind and partially sighted people.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken in what has been a very welcome debate. I am sorry to disappoint those who wish to characterise the Government as hard-faced on this matter. I hope I will be able to convince your Lordships of quite the reverse; we are interested in further conversations.
These amendments, which I agree were very ably introduced by my noble friend Lord Holmes and spoken to by others including the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, relate to the accessibility of elections for people with disabilities and the measures in the Bill aimed at improving this. We accept the principles put forward I thought so cogently by my noble friend Lord Holmes—inclusion, accessibility, independence and secrecy. Those are things that all of us would wish to strive for. As the noble Baroness and others recognised, not all of those are currently catered for.
I wish to highlight that the measures introduced by the Bill actually respond to findings from our 2017 call for evidence Access to Elections which raised concerns that the prescription of assistive devices in law can be an obstacle to innovation and wider inclusion. The Government are clear, as I think was also widely agreed in the debate, that a one-size-fits-all approach cannot ensure that appropriate support is delivered by returning officers to all disabled voters, whether they are blind and partially sighted or have a different disability. It is for this reason that we consider it absolutely necessary that we make provision to extend support to wider groups of disabled voters. I am pleased that the spirit of the amendments broadly agrees with this principle and the ultimate goal of making elections more accessible for all people with disabilities. Contrary to the assertion made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that is our objective.
Two of these amendments, those from my noble friend Lord Holmes and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, would require the Government to prescribe in law equipment or a set of equipment for blind and partially sighted voters, in addition to widening support to other disabilities. I listened carefully to what they have to say and will continue to do so. The Government have engaged positively with the RNIB. I assure the House that my colleagues in DLUHC continue to engage with it regularly, and it remains a crucial part of the Accessibility of Elections Working Group. It expressed concern that the approach taken in the Bill might result in a loss of protection for blind and partially sighted voters, but I emphasise that this should not and will not be the case under the approach we propose. This protection will remain, but the form in which it is provided will be improved and allow for more and better solutions to be developed.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
I do not want to interrupt the Minister while he is in full flow, but his description of the way money flows to local authorities applies to a new provision. This is removing an existing provision: that is the distinction. Why are the Government removing a provision? Is it because they lost two court cases and were told they should be doing more?
Lord True (Con)
No, my Lords; the reality is that the current position is confined and the Government are seeking to move to a future where a range of assistance is available. Again, in my submission, the noble Lord does not characterise the position correctly. As for his allusion to court cases, everybody who has some knowledge of these proceedings knows very well that there was a court case in 2019, which is a matter that the Government must address and are addressing.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I must press the Minister here. Following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, the impact assessment is very clear. Under this policy, there are no direct costs because returning officers
“will be able to buy the equipment they think best”
suits
“those with disabilities … by removing the requirement to buy a specific device.”
That is what the impact assessment says. There is no extra money: money will be moved from the prescribed equipment to what the returning officer sees fit.
Lord True
My Lords, we are seeking to move to a better, more flexible and more complete approach for blind and partially sighted people, and others. I repeat what I said to the House: if new burdens flow from these proposals, long-standing government policy will apply. We have heard, not from the Government at this Dispatch Box but from others who have spoken, that the specific equipment available today does not suit every circumstance. It is reasonable, therefore, to engage in the kind of open discussion we are having, and which I welcome. If I am allowed to make progress, I will say a little more about what the Government hope to do.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My question was really about the cost of the system trialled in Norfolk and whether the problem was that it was prohibitive. My understanding was that it would be spread out nationally, and I wanted to know why that did not happen and whether cost was an element.
Lord True (Con)
I do not believe that was the case but I am not briefed on the specific point. I will of course give the noble Baroness an answer on that.
There are many things in the Bill on which we disagree, and I am conscious that there will be hard and difficult debates with the Government, and I will be very much in the dock on a number of things. I understand the suspicions and concerns that have been raised, but I beg to persuade the House, not only today in Committee but in further conversations I hope to have with noble Lords, that the Government’s earnest here is not to confine but to extend what is available to disabled people and to blind and partially sighted people.
The amendments as drafted would be prescriptive and would provide for specific equipment to be legally required in over 40,000 polling stations across the United Kingdom. This might ossify the position on equipment provided and could take away the opportunity to provide equipment that people want and need, which is the aim of the more tailored approach introduced by these measures.
Additionally, it is important to be mindful that, as my noble friend Lord Holmes reminded us in opening, being able to “vote without any need for assistance” can mean different things to different people, as the act of voting could be seen to include various actions, from knowing the candidates to marking the ballot or placing the vote in the ballot box. Identifying a device or combination of devices that would enable every single blind and partially sighted person to complete every step in the voting process securely and without assistance would be hard.
The Government are absolutely clear that we do not want the changes to be a postcode lottery of support. The new requirements—this is important, and I note the amendments put forward by my noble friend—will be supported by Electoral Commission guidance. That will be developed in conjunction with expert organisations representing a wide range of disabled people and will provide a clear and consistent framework for returning officers to follow. The Electoral Commission will also include this in its performance standards for returning officers to ensure accountability in the delivery of the new policy.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Clearly, the Minister has not read the impact assessment. It makes it clear that the list will be provided but says:
“nor is there a requirement for”
returning officers
“to choose from this list specifically.”
Therefore, the list is not a guarantee of a minimum standard across the country.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have said that the Government anticipate a very important role for the Electoral Commission. During our first day in Committee —a long day, which I welcomed—your Lordships expressed profound respect, which I share, for the Electoral Commission. I suggest that the role there should be for the commission in overseeing the development of this important aspect of policy should give your Lordships rather more faith in the future than the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, seems to have.
Lord Scriven (LD)
It is not the Electoral Commission but the Government’s own impact assessment which says that the returning officers do not have to buy from the list which will be provided by the commission. This is a government impact assessment and nothing to do with the Electoral Commission.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s desire and wish is that all people who wish to vote and have voting accessible to them will have the best provision that fits them individually. I note, if I may continue, that the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Holmes relates precisely to this point of the support that the Electoral Commission will provide for the policy. As I have said, the Government are working very closely with the commission in this area and we are confident that it will be able to support the policy in a way that benefits all disabled people. That said, I am therefore sympathetic to the desire behind my noble friend’s amendment. Having heard what other noble Lords said, I would welcome further discussion, with a view to coming to a shared position on the role of the commission during the Bill’s passage.
Finally, Amendment 122 would require the Government to conduct a competition to identify technological solutions to support disabled voters. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, this is a challenging and interesting idea. I would say that this is absolutely in the spirit of the policy. We want to promote innovation and development in this area—something that has been all too lacking in recent years. Although it is not something we would instinctively want to require legislatively, a tranche of measures will support the ongoing implementation of the policy. I remain open to further discussions in this space also.
In conclusion, I have welcomed the debate and, as I have noted, we share a joint aim to improve the accessibility of elections. Therefore, I look forward to continued discussion on how best this might be done. For the reasons outlined earlier, we cannot keep the specific prescribed equipment we have now in legislation—nor would we want to do this, as it is not the best way to support all disabled voters—but we recognise the concerns raised and the sentiments behind the amendment and I remain open to conversations between now and Report. With that undertaking, I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who participated in this afternoon’s debate. It is invidious to single out any noble Lord in particular, but in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, we got a very helpful and detailed insight into some international comparators, which I hope my noble friend the Minister will find helpful as we go for further discussions and deliberations on this point.
There is something I should have mentioned at the start: in my excitement to get started I should have given my apologies for not having been able to speak at Second Reading due to a prior meeting. Also, at least as importantly, I should have paid my respects to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who kindly supported my amendment and is unable to be here in Committee due to a private engagement speaking to several groups of schoolchildren, which he is so brilliant at doing.
I say nothing on the cost point, but it seems pertinent to raise a universal principle to put on the record at this stage: if something, be it a product, a system or a process, is designed from the outset to be inclusive by design, generally there will be no additional cost incurred. Things become tricky only when we get into a situation of retrofit, trying to make good, trying to make inclusive post event. I just put that universal principle on the record. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his considered response, I look forward to further discussions between now and Report and certainly to returning to this issue on Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment confines the effect of inserted subsection (1A) for section 90C of the Representation of the People Act 1983, so that it does not apply in relation to local government elections in Scotland or Wales.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment confines the effect of inserted subsection (1A) for section 73 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (“PPERA”), so that it applies only for the purposes of campaign expenditure incurred during a period involving a parliamentary general election or a general election to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment confines the effect of the inserted subsection (1A) for section 86 of PPERA, so that it applies only for the purposes of controlled expenditure incurred during a period involving a parliamentary general election or a general election to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment confines the effect of the inserted subsection (8A) for section 94 of PPERA, so that it applies only for the purposes of controlled expenditure incurred during a period involving a parliamentary general election or a general election to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Lord Collins of Highbury
“(8) The Secretary of State must by regulations define “encouraged” for the purposes of this section within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes the use of the term “encouraged”.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I am taking the unusual step of trying to get a debate going about a particular word. It may not last long but, knowing my ability, I suspect it will go on for a bit longer than people perhaps anticipate.
I raised this previously, on the first day in Committee: what is the problem that we are examining here, and what is the solution that this clause seeks to offer to that problem? It is not clear to me that we are providing a solution. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, will seek to raise some of these broader issues in his clause stand part debate. One of the things suggested is that it is about changing a legal test in the notional spending provisions, which I know are an essential part of election spending controls.
When I first started working in Transport House in 1972, the Labour Party was fully occupied in Transport House. General election campaigns were run from that building and, even after the Labour Party left Transport House and moved to the Walworth Road, it still used the facilities we had in Transport House to conduct the national campaign. Of course, that was prior to some of the regulations about how we account for funding and spending.
This is really quite an important issue. In its briefing, the Electoral Commission points out that in the 2019 general election, notional spending accounted for 40% of the total campaign spend across all candidates, so it is a huge issue that we need to make sure we get right. The Electoral Commission says it is really important that candidates need to be clear when something is notional spending, because it counts towards their total campaign spend and they must not exceed it.
The Explanatory Notes for the Bill say:
“Clause 18 subsection (1) (notional expenditure: use of property etc. on behalf of candidates and others) amends section 90C of the RPA 1983 in order to clarify that ‘on behalf of’ means where the candidate has directed, authorised or encouraged that use by someone else. This will clarify that candidates only need to report benefits in kind which they have actually used, or directed or encouraged someone else to use and do not need to fear being responsible for benefits in kind of which they had no knowledge.”
I have heard the Minister stress that the Bill’s purpose is to better define things, make sure that they are better understood and make sure that, if there are any loopholes, they are closed. I tabled this probing amendment to ask exactly what “encouraged” means. How are we to define that? How will that be translated into codes and guidance that the Electoral Commission puts forward?
I have a concern, and I hope the Minister will spend some time explaining this. What is the problem? Are we properly accounting for all notional spend? To me, that is the problem that this clause should address. If the Electoral Commission is telling us that it is 40% of the spend, we need to make absolutely sure that it is properly accounted for.
My fear is that this Bill is not doing that and could lead to claims of, “I didn’t know—I had no knowledge, even though my campaign people were using an office or a car. I didn’t know that shop down the road was open for me to use.” There are issues of serious concern here. What is wrong with the existing provisions on notional spend? I would ask the Minister to describe the problems, give us the evidence of where problems have occurred and then tell us how this clause solves those problems.
I have tabled this specific probing amendment and I have no doubt that I will repeat some of these concerns when we get to the clause stand part debate. It is incumbent on the Minister to be absolutely clear on this issue. The Electoral Commission says in its briefing that this needs to be tightened up and people’s responsibilities made clear, but then I read in the Explanatory Notes that we want to ensure that candidates need not fear being responsible for benefits in kind of which they have no knowledge. I do not like the idea that ignorance is a defence, yet that is where this clause may be leading. I ask the Minister to tell us what “encourage” means, but also to give us a better explanation of the problem and the solution that this clause attempts to provide.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I rise to ask some questions very much in parallel with those the noble Lord, Lord Collins, posed to the Minister. The word “encourage” is difficult to define in the legal sense. Is he prepared to share the advice that he has received from counsel about how a court might interpret “encourage” if an offence came before it? The noble Lord, Lord Collins, has illustrated that “encourage” is one thing and “ignorance of” another, but there is a tremendous zone in between, which will be an interesting legal minefield.
I would have thought that, in introducing this proposition in the Bill and to the Committee, the Minister would have in mind creating certainty, not a minefield through which agents, candidates and, for that matter, national parties have to step lightly to make sure that they do not offend and offend again. Speaking as a former candidate and a former agent, I never had any doubt about the distinction between things given to me by my party or anybody else for use in the election, and things that happened as a result of circumstances. Of course, we will come to third-party spending as a separate item later.
Although it has not been clearly expressed as such in the debate on this group of amendments, the specific reason for this clause being here at all is a legal case, which, from the perspective of the Conservative Party, went wrong. The party is seeking to change things so this does not go wrong next time; we will address the sense, or not, of that when we get to the next item for debate. However, even granted that it is a sensible inclusion in the Bill, would it not be rather more sensible to have an inclusion that does not lead to further ambiguity, doubt and difficulty, which will simply tie up agents, candidates and national party agents in trying to work out what “encourage” means or where the boundary of “encourage” lies?
I find it quite hard to understand the situation whereby a coach of activists can turn up and help you for a week and you could not be said to have encouraged it to happen. You may not have ordered them to come—but was any evidence presented that the local party officials at the time rejected it, but the national party insisted that these people came over their dead bodies? Where does “encourage” take us with that? Does “encourage” have a legal definition? We are familiar with other terms, which are used in perhaps somewhat similar circumstances, such as “facilitating”. Clearly, that is one way of looking at it. If they say, “Mrs Buggins will put somebody up for the night”, is that facilitating or encouraging?
There are many difficulties in the wording of this provision, quite apart from the outstanding difficulties with the clause as a whole, which we shall come to in a few minutes’ time. I hope the Minister will share with us the advice that he has had from legal counsel about how courts would interpret “encourage”. I am sure that the courts will come to a common-sense view, based on their understanding of UK language and legislation and any kind of previous case that they can draw into it, but a common-sense understanding of what “encourage” means may not be sufficient. At this point, I want to hear how the Minister imagines it will be interpreted by the courts when the inevitable cases come, via the Electoral Commission, the police or whatever mechanism is going to be permitted under this Bill for any offences to be prosecuted—we have dealt with that subject already. Assuming that cases will be taken forward, how does the Minister expect the courts to interpret “encourage”? What kind of evidence would show that encouragement took place or, alternatively, what kind of evidence could a candidate or an agent produce to show that they did not encourage? Would they have to produce some emails, perhaps, to show that they pleaded with headquarters not to send the money, help, leaflets or a coachload of young people?
The Minister can get the drift of the question that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, is asking, and which is important to understand, so that we get some measure of what this provision might achieve and what it might very well not achieve, despite the Minister’s intentions.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I agree very much with what has been said by both my noble friend Lord Collins and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, who bring a tremendous amount of experience to this matter. I cannot quite match the noble Lord’s experience. I have fought sundry elections at parish, district, county and parliamentary level over the years, but by a bit of fancy footwork I have always avoided becoming an election agent. It has always struck me as the most frightening job in connection with elections.
That brings me to my observation on these amendments —that above all else one needs clarity and simplicity in this area to make the job of being an election agent less onerous and forbidding than it is at present. When we have these kinds of discussions, I often think that there is an assumption somewhere, although I cannot locate where it comes from, that there is a queue of people with tremendous experience who are dead keen to become election agents. My experience is the opposite: as a candidate you pretty well have to beg some friend of long standing to take on the responsibility, because it is a huge responsibility.
It is incumbent on us, as legislators, to make any law in this area as simple, straightforward and unambiguous as possible. That seems to be the objective behind what my noble friend is proposing. I share his concern and anxiety, particularly about the word “encouraged”, which has been developed by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. There is nothing I would add to that, other than to say: for goodness’ sake, keep the poor election agent in mind throughout this kind of discussion, because—my word—they have a heavy burden to carry.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I share the sentiment of what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has just said. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, is right to seek clarification of what “encouraged” means. However, why is the role given to the Secretary of State, and not the legislation itself, to define it? If we cannot define it, kick it out. Why should this responsibility be given to the Secretary of State, who “must by regulations define” what it means? It is a bit late in the day for that.
I also share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, about how courts will define what “encouraged” means. I have a problem with it being defined by the Secretary of State “by regulations”. I am one of those who is always very suspicious of legislation, in a secondary way, allowing regulations to grow like Topsy as has been the case over the last so many years. The legislators are allowing it to go ahead. I would have thought that the Bill itself should define what it is. If it cannot define it, do not put it in.
After listening to noble Lords who defined what election agents do and their enthusiasm for the things that they do, I am glad that I could never be such a person, because I do not think that I am worthy of it.
I ask the Minister—because the Government have drafted the legislation and put it into the Bill—to explain to us what he means by “encouraged”. Will it stand up to the standards of the law courts? If it cannot, why is it not just taken out?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I am often grateful I was never an election agent. I fought five elections and was once approached and asked if I would work as an agent for an early election. I am eternally grateful that I did not accept, because I did not begin to understand the complications and responsibilities of the task then. I have learned some of them since, but life has got a great deal more complicated over the last 50 or 60 years as the technology of elections and the power of the national parties, compared with the local parties, have shifted quite radically.
When I read this clause, I was struck by the word “only”, which appears repeatedly. That was the word I wanted to challenge. For example, it says that
“facilities are made use of on behalf of a candidate only if their use on behalf of the candidate is directed”.
Why does “only” keep recurring in various different contexts? It is clearly intended to weaken the possibility that the candidate could, in any way, be regarded as responsible. That worries me. Any good lawyer would be able to unpick the candidate being responsible under most circumstances for what the national party had done within his or her constituency. We well know, from the case to which this clause relates, that the national parties as a whole have come to engage in specific constituencies to target them and to spend a great deal of money from the national level in them. I suspect that candidates are always aware of this, but they may not always have wished to encourage it.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for this short debate. I will not enter into the discussions of election experiences, but I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that it is not always easy to find election agents. Anyone who has been involved in politics is mindful of the difficulties which sometimes arise in the course of elections.
What we are seeking to do in Clause 18—I will come on to “encouraged”, which has been suggested goes in the opposite direction—is to clarify the law on notional expenditure. A debate on Clause 18 stand part will follow this debate and it is probably the appropriate place for this. It makes it clear that candidates need to report only benefits in kind: property, goods, services and facilities provided for the use or benefit of a candidate at a discount or free which the candidate has used or which the candidate or their election agent has directed, authorised or encouraged someone else to use on their behalf.
This brings me to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Collins. I say to the noble and right reverend Lord that I do not think that he is suggesting that the Secretary of State should draft regulations. I accept that this is a probing amendment; it is not a proposition that the Government have put on the Marshalled List. The noble Lord is seeking clarification of the term “encouraged”. The wording in the Bill was chosen to cover as many scenarios as possible and to capture circumstances where the candidate or their agent encouraged a particular use of property, goods, services or facilities, without going as far as directing it or specifically authorising its use. There is an area of uncertainty here, as he acknowledged. However, if only formal authorisation is required, the risk is that the candidate could encourage someone to use a benefit in kind without having to not report it as they did not give authorisation for it to be used. Requiring further regulations to define this term would risk reducing the breadth of the scope of these new rules on notional expenditure and opening up potential loopholes that we are seeking to address. The language in this clause has been crafted to strike a balance between the status quo, where no form of authorisation is required, which has generated understandable concerns from candidates and agents, and the overly blunt alternative of formal authorisation, which could risk being circumvented in practice, as the noble Lord suggested.
This clarification of the law on notional spending is vital to ensure that candidates should not fear being responsible for benefits in kind of which they had no knowledge. I think we would agree with that; the Explanatory Notes say that. Encouragement in the context in which we understand it and in this Bill must be a positive act. It is not intended to capture situations where a candidate did not have knowledge of someone using a benefit in kind on their behalf.
As I said at the outset, as an experienced campaigner I acknowledge that it is not always easy readily to apply the rules on election spending practically to the day-to-day reality of a campaign. We will discuss guidance in greater detail later today, but I assure the Committee that we intend that the Electoral Commission will produce guidance for campaigners to help them understand specifically these concepts and to apply and comply with the rules on notional spending in so doing. In the past, the commission has made good use of illustrative examples to aid campaigners. Further to this, we are broadening the scope of the statutory codes of practice on election spending that can be prepared by the commission to ensure that the codes include guidance on notional spending.
Some Members of the Committee asked for some specific comments on legal meanings or for further detail on “encouraged”. We expect that this guidance and the codes of practice will come forward from not the Secretary of State but the Electoral Commission. I understand where the noble Lord is coming from and will reflect on what has been said, and if I can I will put further clarification to him in writing and submit it to the House before Report, because I appreciate the direction he is coming from.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that response. Clearly, we are coming to a much more detailed debate about the clause in the stand part debate, but, in the light of the explanations given so far, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, the reason for the Clause 18 stand part debate is that we should not let this important change in legislation pass without some significant scrutiny. The principle of notional expenditure might appear at first to be simple, but it is not quite so simple in the era of massive national party spending.
The original intention of election law concerning notional expenditure was always about making sure that spending limits were not circumvented by donations in kind. Before the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, there were limits only on expenditure by appointed election agents, or those they authorise, on behalf of their candidates. These people knew that money might not change hands for notional expenditure, covering things such as the use of a donated office for the campaign HQ or office equipment such as a photocopier, or significant discounts might be applied for their provision.
The value of the notional expenditure—what is effectively donated to the campaign—must be included in the candidate’s expenditure limit. If this was not the case, people supporting candidates could provide offices, staff, leaflets, posters and advertising free of charge to the campaign of their choice, and these materials would not be subject to the limits on candidate expenditure.
The legislation passed in 2000 brought in the concept of national party spending limits to try to create a more level playing field at national level. Before then, the parties understood that spending on a national campaign had to be just that: national spending spread evenly across the whole country, covering things such as newspaper advertising, billboards and party election broadcasts.
However, with a national party spending limit of £19.5 million, the parties no longer feel obliged to spend what they can evenly across the whole country. They have increasingly decided to target their national party spending at marginal seats. This might have brought them into conflict with the law. We have seen what was supposed to be national advertising on billboards and in local newspapers targeted largely at marginal consistencies. The 2000 legislation intended to cap unfair financial advantage nationally, but inadvertently it might have had the opposite effect and accelerated the arms race in party expenditure at elections. Parties have since decided that their national campaigns can produce direct mail, leaflets, Facebook adverts et cetera, targeted largely at marginal constituencies.
The supposed clarification of notional expenditure in Clause 18 is there to say that, from now on, the candidate or the election agent is not responsible for such expenditure if they have not specifically authorised it. This might seem a reasonable principle at first glance, but it means that the costs of materials that might benefit their campaign do not have to be included in the tightly restricted spending limits for candidates in constituencies. National parties can now target their direct mail at specific voters in specific marginal seats. They pay for leaflets for those constituencies, and they pay for their distribution either commercially or by paid volunteers. National campaigns can swamp the efforts of individual candidates to make their case.
When the Conservative Party went over the top in 2015 by paying for the bussing in of hundreds of party workers in marginal seats, employing them to canvass and deliver leaflets, putting them up in hotels and paying for their meals, there was a national outcry, led by “Channel 4 News” and the Daily Mirror, among others. It appeared that the marginal seats that might have brought the Conservative victory had actually been bought.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to speak in favour of this clause not standing part of the Bill. I should declare an interest that, as a Green, I am well used to always being on the wrong side of the unfair financial advantage the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, referred to. We obviously have an arms race in spending and politics paid for by the people who pump the money in. I have what might be considered a radical amendment later in this Bill to suggest that we put a very tight limit on donations. It starts from the other end of these things, saying that the quality of our politics is not benefiting from money being pumped in. This clause stand part notice suggests that we do not allow an escalation of the concentration of money even further.
Moving away from the interests of parties that do not have that sort of money—I am sure that many people who have done practical politics will know the reality of this—very often you have a street, down which is the boundary of a constituency or a council ward, and the people on one side are in a hotly contested marginal constituency and those on the other are in a safe seat. Neighbours talk to each other; one says, “I’ve got so many election leaflets coming through my door, my recycling bin is totally overflowing”, and one from the other side of the street says, “Oh, is there an election on? I didn’t know.” Think about what kind of disrepute that brings our politics into, when massive amounts of resources are concentrated in a small number of seats. People can see that this is not right or balanced, or a national political contest.
The idea of allowing notional expenditure just to roll on takes us to a very bad place, so I back the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, on this.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, we have already explored what the exact meaning of “encouraged” is. I thought the answer was going be a lemon, but it is guidance, apparently, which is not very encouraging. I am hopeful that the courts in the event will be just as robust in their interpretation of “encouraged” as they were in respect of coach trips to Thanet, so that this clause in practice will not make the change in the law the Minister hopes for. It may become a dead letter, even. More exactly, it will become not a dead letter but a further cause of confusion, with no reduction in jeopardy for agents and candidates who rely on it. But for the purposes of this debate, let us take it at face value.
In our debate last week on Clause 17, I referred to that clause as an exercise in “wing-clipping” the Electoral Commission. By the Minister’s own account, as he told your Lordships, in practice, those proposed changes made no real difference to anything. He obviously intended to give us some reassurance that those changes meant nothing at all, but I surmise that when he reports back to CCHQ he will make it sound a far more impressive change. Now we have Clause 18, which I also think is going to be found facing both ways. In reality, it is an attempt to satisfy the bloodlust of some right-wing Tory MPs who had rather a close shave in 2015. The Minister’s intention is that if this clause goes on the statute book next time, they will get away scot free. For that matter, we will all get away scot free, able to do exactly as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has just spelled out. I actually think that in responding to this debate he will attempt to sell it to us as something far less important or serious: “It is simply a margin note to clarify the commonly accepted understanding of current law. Nothing to see here; let us move on to the next clause.”
It is worth exploring what the law says now and how it will be different if this clause stands. My noble friend Lord Rennard spelled this out very clearly. In a general election, there are two financial constraints, one at constituency level and one at national level. The constituency spending level is, comparatively speaking, tight, and the national level is, comparatively speaking, generous—and about to become even more generous, apparently. That second constraint—the maximum figure a party can spend outside constituencies—goes into a national campaign. Even the Conservative Party, with all its large donors from various nationalities and provenances, has actually found it hard to spend up to the national limits; and no other party has come anywhere close. So there is an obvious temptation to use some of that spending power in supporting constituency campaigns, which may be pressing hard up against their expense ceiling.
Of course, big cheques cannot simply be handed over by a national party campaign to the local one. It would be too visible. But goods and services in kind are much harder to keep in focus from outside. Even so, existing election law requires the constituency agent to give a fair account of any goods and services received below cost, and that that difference should be taken into account as a donation in lieu. In practice, help has to be a little more nuanced and a little more distanced from the agent. That was the nub of the fracas in Thanet. The election court saw through the Conservatives’ sleight of hand, so now we have Clause 18.
I call Clause 18 the “get out of jail free” clause. No notional spending by a party in a constituency will count unless the local agent or responsible person has “directed, authorised or encouraged” that spending. It probably does not work, although the dialogue between the party and the agent would be an interesting one to hear, would it not? “Hi Mr Agent, just a quick call from national HQ to let you know we are sending in a couple of teams to work alongside your people for the next couple of weeks. No big deal, it won’t cost you a penny. Now, don’t say a word, I don’t need any encouragement from you. It is just that your seat polling figures are slipping, so we think you need some help.” Was there any authorisation or encouragement? No, he did not encourage anybody. He did not open his lips.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, a kind of fiction has prevailed over a very long period of election history that, somehow or other, the crucial electoral battleground is each individual constituency. It has long been recognised that there is a need for strict limits on expenditure by individual candidates in individual constituencies. On the other level, however, there is the national campaign, where limits on expenditure are so much looser.
I was very alarmed, as I had not heard it before, by the information from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard—he is usually reliable on these issues—that there is possibly a huge increase planned in the maximum expenditure allowed at the national level. This may not be a popular thing to say to candidates—I may be talking to myself—but it is clear to me that, although both levels of campaigning expenditure are clearly important, if you had to label the one that is the most important in determining the overall outcome of modern elections, it would be the national expenditure and national campaign. All candidates believe profoundly that it is what they do in their individual constituencies that is of crucial importance.
I have also noticed that all candidates—I have been one of them—tend to think that, when they win their local campaign, it is down to a particular level of skill and expertise in their campaign, and when they lose, it is generally someone else’s fault. The truth at general elections is that, for all the variance you can get in 650 different constituencies, the broad truth prevails: when the tide is out for your party, the tide is likely to be out everywhere, and vice versa. This whole issue of the balance between control over national expenditure and control over local expenditure is fundamental.
Of course, the irony is that, for years and years, there was control over local expenditure. It has long been recognised that there must be limits locally. However, it is relatively recently in our parliamentary history that we have seen the need for national limits; as we have said, they are so loose now as to be barely limits at all—certainly for one party in particular. This is a crucial area of debate and discussion but, most of all, the one headline I want to get out of this—perhaps the Minister will address it when he replies because he is on the inside track and we are not—is whether there really is a proposal that there should be a colossal increase in the level of expenditure allowed at the national level by political parties. If the Minister has any inside information on this, I would love him to share it with the Committee.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, one of the things on which there was consensus from all the various reports that fed into this Bill was that what we need most of all is a simplification of electoral law. This clause is a classic example of making things more complicated. I think we all recognise that this is the Conservative response to the Thanet case. The case for having this in the clause is extremely weak.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Collins, talk about the 1970 election campaign. I am older than him. I worked at party headquarters during the 1966 campaign. Looking back, it was incredibly amateur. The Conservative campaign was not that much more professional than ours at the national level. Then, the largest department in the Conservative headquarters, as I remember it, was the research department. We did not have phone canvassing, of course. We did not use opinion polls much. At the time, I was otherwise working as a research assistant to Dr David Butler on the first major survey of electoral opinion in Britain. We were using punch cards to get at our data; it was such a slow process that you could not analyse during the campaign at speed. We did not have any digital campaigning, of course. In those days, the Conservative Party had a couple of million members and raised a lot of its money and did most of its activity at the local level.
We have shifted a long way since then, soo I want to talk about some of the principles; I hope that the Minister still recognises that they are important. They cover this clause and Part 4. The first principle is that we should retain a clear distinction between constituency campaigning and national campaigning. After all, it is one of the most tried and tested aspects of our democracy that Parliament consists of people who represent local communities in constituencies. They have not always been individual constituencies as there used to be multiple-member constituencies; the noble Lord will go back far enough, but never mind.
That is the principle. It has already been weakened by the tightening of limits between constituencies, which means that the new constituencies that are about to be redrawn will represent recognisable local communities much less than they have done so far. We hear people—Jacob Rees-Mogg, for example—say, “We have already moved from a parliamentary system to a presidential system. That is how our elections now go”. I regret that. As it happens, I am in favour of multiple-member constituencies and a much more open voting system, but that is part of the argument we should be having about the quality of our democracy. To erode the distinction between the constituency—that is, the election of an individual MP—and the national campaign would be a fundamental shift in our democracy larger than changing the nature of our voting system. I hope that the Minister recognises that.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
I agree so much about the importance of the close connection between individual candidates and individual constituencies but I am sure that the noble Lord would agree with me that that is much weakened under a system of proportional representation.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
We need not discuss the various alternative forms of voter registration. “Not necessarily” is the easy answer.
The second principle I want to focus on, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Stunell, is that there should as far as possible be a level playing field. We have seen what happened as that disappeared with the lifting of funding restrictions in the United States. The quality of American campaigning and the level of trust in American democracy have gone down, and that is partly because of the sheer weight of money that now deforms American politics. We have it here. I read in the Sunday Times the weekend before last that in the last three months of 2019, Ben Elliot, the chairman of the Conservative Party, raised just over £37 million for the Conservative Party, more than it was able to spend legally in the course of the campaign, and that it represented two-thirds of the money raised by all registered parties in that period. That takes the whole idea of a level playing field for democracy into deep and difficult trouble, and it strengthens the case for making sure that the regulation of expenditure, which is what Part 4 is about, is kept tight, clear and simple.
The third principle that I hope the Minister will agree on is that funding and expenditure should be as transparent as possible, both by registered parties and, as we shall come on to, by third parties, and that this clause does not help in that regard.
Clause 18 weakens regulation. It complicates and confuses it. I think we have seen from Second Reading and from our first day in Committee that noble Lords throughout the House generally agree on the need to strengthen regulation and the Electoral Commission. For these reasons, I suggest to the Minister that the clause as drafted and as intended does not match the Bill.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I come back to the comment I made on the earlier group of amendments: what is broken? What is this clause trying to put right, and does it solve it? I think we have heard from the debate on it that it does not really address the issue. Whatever happened in Thanet—and there may be other instances that were not subject to court cases—it has certainly gone through a proper legal process. As we have heard, both the Supreme Court and the Electoral Commission have addressed that issue.
I regret that we have moved away from the requirement that fundamental changes be subject to consent across all parties. That has been an important element of maintaining our democracy. Of course, the Trade Union Act was the first part of that attack by the Conservative Party on one party, which broke that consensus on funding.
As I have said before, the Conservative Party likes a debate about spending limits— “We can have a limit here, and the national limit and so on”—but the real debate is not about spending but about income. When David Cameron was Prime Minister and we have had discussions about it, we have seen that it is the income side of our politics that brings it into disrepute. Very rarely is it the spending side. The income side is about who has given the money, how much they are giving and what they expect for it. Taking big money out of politics is the issue. I say to the Conservative Party that its time will come, because when it is in opposition there will be a strong focus on the income side of this debate, and it will not like the result. It will not be able to rely on a large number of very wealthy people; it will have to rely on a larger number of low-income people, because I strongly believe that caps on donations are far more important than limits on spending. That is a debate for another day, but it is important to set today’s debate in context.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will start by answering the noble Lord, Lord Collins. He asked twice, once of my noble friend and once of me: what is the problem here? Currently, as the 2018 Supreme Court case revealed, the law is at odds with what the candidates understand in their communities. That ruling has meant that agents are now unsure—we have talked a lot about how difficult it is to get agents —about how to account for notional expenditure. That is exactly what we are addressing in the Bill.
Before I move on from the noble Lord, I will just say how much I agree with him on the importance—to me, the most important thing in our electoral system—of that connection between an individual candidate, whether local or national, and the communities that they are trying to serve, and do serve if they win an election. To me, that is the most important thing in our democracy.
The level playing field was brought up by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Wallace. It is important, but the rules that we are putting forward on notional expenditure are designed to maintain free and fair elections. Political parties will not be able to spend more on candidates as a result of these amendments. All spending which is currently recorded will continue to be recorded. These amendments will therefore uphold the level playing field for elections, which, as I have said, form the cornerstone of our democracy. Expenditure that promotes an individual candidature will continue to count towards a candidate’s own spending limit. Expenditure which is joint between a party and a candidate will continue to be apportioned in an appropriate way and reported to the returning officer. The level playing field is continued.
A number of noble Lords brought up national spending limits. Spending limits are different from the protections for candidates which ensure that their agent must approve certain expenditure, but the Government are intending to review party and candidate spending limits for all other polls apart from local elections, which were increased in line with inflation in 2021. It is important that these are uprated in line with inflation, which will create a solid baseline for future reviews.
The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, again mentioned national versus local spending and asked whether this would cause spending to stop being reported and allow parties to spend more on candidates without reporting it. No, it will not. No notional expenditure will stop being reported as a result of this clarification. Benefits in kind which are offered and used by them or their agent, or anyone authorised, directed or encouraged to make use of them on the candidate’s behalf, will still need to be reported. Also, where a third party, including a political party, is spending money to promote a candidate directly to the electorate, this generally falls under spending in Section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. Those reporting rules will still apply.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked about transparency. Transparency is indeed there and will continue to be there in all spending on local and national elections.
We have heard already, and it has been said a number of times, that Clause 18 clarifies the law on notional expenditure, making it clear that candidates need to report only benefits in kind—that is, property, goods, services and facilities that are provided for the use or the benefit of the candidate at a discount or for free—which they have actually used or which they or their election agent have directed, authorised or encouraged someone else to use on their behalf. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked about somebody ringing up from central office and saying that they are bringing down a bus. I suggest that you will have either authorised or encouraged it; I do not believe you would say nothing on the end of that phone if that is going to happen. This is what was already widely understood to be true. Nothing much is changing; we thought that was true prior to the Supreme Court judgment in the matter of R v Mackinlay and others.
In its 2019 report on electoral law, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee called for consultation to take place on how the law on notional spending could be clarified. In evidence to PACAC, the Labour Party said that it would be supportive of legislation
“that would serve to clarify Parliament’s intention as to the extent the election agent is responsible for expenditure by third party campaigns to support their candidates.”
So the Labour Party, in PACAC, was in support of this. That is precisely—
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt, but one has to see the context of that response. Our argument tonight is that this clause does not do that—it does not provide clarity. I wish it did, and then we could all support it. But it could lead to the complete opposite of what the noble Baroness is suggesting.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I suggest that the Government believe that it does clarify; that is exactly what it does, so we will have to disagree on that. We feel that Clauses 18 and 20 of the Bill do precisely what the Labour Party asked for and supported in PACAC.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, if I have understood the argument that the noble Baroness has been making, this clause would not in any sense change the outcome of the Thanet case. If it is clarifying things in that direction, the clause is not necessary.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
No, what I am saying is that it will clarify for candidates and agents what is required and what was not very clear at the time of that case.
We have sought input on these measures from the Parliamentary Parties Panel and we are confident that they will bring important clarity to the rules and support compliance. Indeed, Craig Mackinlay, the Member of Parliament for South Thanet, whom we have talked about a number of times, knows better than anyone the deficient nature of the current rules, and he welcomed and praised the clarity which this Bill brings to notional expenditure.
In this clause, we are also making an equivalent amendment to the notional expenditure rules for other types of campaigners, such as political parties and third-party campaigners, to ensure that all the rules are consistent. Together, these changes will bring much-needed reassurance and clarity to candidates and their agents on the rules that apply to notional expenditure for reserved elections. Alongside guidance from the Electoral Commission, with which we are working closely, this measure will support compliance with the rules and ensure that those wishing to participate in public life can feel safe doing so, clear in their legal obligations. It is for this reason that I urge that this clause should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. She mentioned the PACAC report into some of these issues, but without quoting the crucial recommendation, in paragraph 16, which says that
“reform should only be taken forwards on the basis of clear consensus.”
This debate, at the very least, has shown that there is not that consensus. It seems to me that the debate is not about how to account for notional spending but whether to account for some of it at all. We have not really been satisfied that, if there were busloads of people from one party, the costs of the coaches, their hotels, their meals and the leaflets they deliver—all spent in a constituency with the clear intention of promoting a candidate—will appear in the constituency limit for that candidate, which is their proper place. The Bill does not seem to make that plain.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for confirming on behalf of the Labour Party and the Green Party that they do not see this clause as necessary. It seems to add significant confusion, and in my view it is particularly important not to add to confusion about what should be included at the same time as you may increase spending totals nationally. As the noble Baroness said, they may have to rise, but the Government said yesterday, in answer to a Written Question I tabled on 28 February, HL6502, that they may increase in line with inflation. That is inflation since 2000, which is 79% and would take a £19.5 million limit to nearly £36 million. There are more issues to debate on this in the next group of amendments.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“Guidance to candidates on notional expenditure
The Secretary of State must publish new guidance to candidates on notional expenditure within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I am speaking to my Amendment 25. In this group there is also Amendment 25A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, which is very similar. These two amendments will echo quite a lot of the debate we have had over the last two groups, and I completely echo the words of my noble friend Lord Collins, in his response to the previous group, about many of the concerns we have about this clause.
As we know, Clause 18 concerns notional expenditure on behalf of candidates and others. In the debate we have just had, my noble friend Lord Collins, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and others drew attention to the detail of what this clause would mean, how it would potentially work and how election law has changed over time—and not just law. Elections have become more sophisticated and more money is being spent, so we really need to make sure that in future we conduct elections in the right and proper way. The Elections Bill needs to be able to provide that integrity and reassurance as we move forward.
Specifically, my Amendment 25 says:
“The Secretary of State must publish new guidance to candidates on notional expenditure within the period of 12 months”.
Amendment 25A from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, suggests:
“The Electoral Commission must publish new guidance to candidates”.
To be honest, I do not really mind which; I just think it is important that such guidance is published.
I read the debate in the other place on this part of the Bill. Introducing this clause, the Minister, Kemi Badenoch, said that it
“makes an important clarification to our political finance rules”.
She went on to explain—as did our Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott—that this came from the Supreme Court decision in 2018 after it was
“determined that the rules on notional expenditure for candidates did not contain a test of authorisation”
and
“there were concerns among parties and campaigners that candidates could be liable to report benefits in kind that they did not know about, but could be seen to have benefited from.”
Obviously, there has been a lot of discussion about what that meant in South Thanet and how that has had an impact on political behaviour during elections since.
What came over in particular from the last debate, and is important when looking at what we are talking about now around the new guidance, is the way in which campaigning has increasingly become pressurised on marginal seats. As my noble friend Lord Collins said, that is the case with all parties. He rightly referenced the fact that political income is an area we need to really look at—where it comes from, how our donations are managed and who provides them. This is an area where, if we are not careful, the behaviour of political parties could come into disrepute. I am not pointing the finger at any party, just saying that we need to be very careful around this when drawing up new election law.
Minister Badenoch went on to say that this is why the Government want to make it
“clear that candidates only need to report as notional expenditure benefits in kind—property, goods, services and facilities that are given to the candidate at a discount, or for free—that they have used themselves, or which they or their agent have authorised, directed or encouraged someone else to use on the candidate’s behalf”,
so that “clarity” is provided
“to candidates and their agents on the rules that apply to notional expenditure.”—[Official Report, Commons, Elections Bill Committee, 26/10/21; cols. 299-300.]
In the Minister’s introduction, and later in the debate, the word “clarity” was used a couple of times. If we are talking about clarity, guidance is important. People need to know when any new rules are brought in. As other noble Lords have said, this is adding to complexity. As a candidate or an agent, you need to know exactly what is expected of you, and it needs to be easy to understand.
During a debate on election expenditure in the other place, Craig Mackinlay—who, as we are all aware, was the candidate and is now the MP for South Thanet—agreed with Andrew Bridgen MP that it was worrying that currently
“a candidate in an election could be liable under the law for spending on his behalf that he neither authorised, nor was even aware of.”—[Official Report, Commons, 11/2/19; col. 690.]
I have been a candidate a number of times in local and parliamentary elections—and, once upon a time, in European elections, but of course that will never happen again—and other noble Lords have talked about this. When you are a candidate, you rely an awful lot on your agent. As my noble friend Lord Grocott said, not many people actually want to be an agent; I have managed to dodge it so far. This clarity, this information, about what the guidance will mean and how they are supposed to operate within any new laws is incredibly important.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s response to this part of the Bill. The Minister said that the proposed changes in the Bill are broadly welcomed but, as other noble Lords said, there were concerns around this. As the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said, this included moving forward with clarity—that word again. We need to know where we all stand. The report said:
“The Government’s response to the CSPL report on electoral finance regulation provides no indication of which of its recommendations (not already included in the Bill) the Government is likely to adopt (via amendment), prioritise for consultation or when or how the Government proposes to give legislative effect to recommendations that will not be included in the Bill. The Government should give clarity on its next steps in this regard.”
It would be helpful to have further information. The Government responded to this and said:
“The Elections Bill is bringing forward the key changes to the regulation of expenditure we need to make now, and it already delivers on several of the recommendations made by the CSPL report. The CSPL report puts forward many recommendations that deserve full consideration”.
I would be interested to hear from the Minister which recommendations the Government were referring to. Their response added that
“further work must be done to consider the implications and practicalities of any further changes to complex electoral law.”
It would be helpful if the Minister could update us on any further work in this regard following the Government’s response. If he is unable to provide that information today, it would be very helpful to have it in writing. The other thing that came through from the evidence to the committee was the response by Professor Fisher, who again considered that the term “encouraged by” could lead to confusion. We had a previous debate on this and I think most noble Lords who spoke agreed that “encouraged by” did not provide the clarity that we need. It is used seven times in Clause 18, scattered all the way through it.
Again, we need to make sure that the rules are understood in order for them to be properly complied with, because this is where we came unstuck before. People did not really understand them, which is why we had the issues around Thanet. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said that if we are not careful we will constantly be adding complexity in the Bill when what we need in electoral law is exactly the opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, talked about the importance of having consensus when we are looking to change the law on how we conduct our elections.
My amendment would mean that the Secretary of State—and the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, would mean that the Electoral Commission—would have to publish new guidance to candidates on the changes. It is important that everyone understands any new responsibilities because we cannot have misunderstanding or misinterpretation. It is not fair on candidates and very much not fair on their agents.
Amendment 30B in the name of my noble friend Lord Collins looks at the threshold for payments in respect of any election expenses. We suggest that the threshold would increase. Section 73 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which is the section on payment of expenses through election agents, states that:
“Every payment made by an election agent in respect of any election expenses shall, except where less than £20, be vouched for by a bill stating the particulars or by a receipt.”
The Minister may be able to clarify this, but my understanding is that this figure of £20 has not been updated since 1985. Clearly, £20 was worth quite a bit more back in 1985 than it is today.
This is a just a probing amendment to suggest to the Government that they could have another look at the RPA in this area. If you are increasing spending in other areas, this is a simple thing that could be done and our suggestion of £65 in the amendment is really just intended to be a starting point for discussion. Sadly, there is not an awful lot you can buy these days for only £20. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 25 and 25A appear to be alternatives.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, this debate has shown that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is definitely right that we need guidance on this crucial issue of notional expenditure. Many of us think that we do not necessarily need a change in the law, given that the courts have clarified the existing position and we need further guidance about what those decisions by the Supreme Court and Southwark Crown Court mean in practice for candidates and agents.
I believe that the appropriate body to provide such guidance is the Electoral Commission. That is partly because it can obtain legal advice independent from that of the Government; the commission can obtain advice about the meaning of the law that may be different from the interpretation of the Government of the day. It can advise all parties impartially and fairly. The Government’s view is most likely to coincide entirely with how the party presently in power would like the law to be interpreted, and that is not a good thing in a democracy.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I just want to intervene, not about the substance of the matter we are debating but about the process. We have two very interesting parallel amendments which have what one might call different routes to market. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said she did not really mind which was followed. I think she should worry, for reasons I shall explain. We tend to pass by—too easily, in my view—guidance, statutory codes, as just referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, regulations and rules. Who devises them, who decides what they are, who implements them and who enforces them? I think it is important that, at some point in the debate on the Bill, we take just a moment to think about the different ways this cat can be skinned.
In the debate on Clauses 14 and 15 in the last day in Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who is not in his place, led the charge, assisted by several other noble Lords from around the House, to give my noble friend the Minister a kicking. I think the idea behind those speakers was to buttress, protect and safeguard the independence of the Electoral Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, referred to this earlier. Well, up to a point. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and I are absolutely as one about the need to improve the way we scrutinise secondary legislation in this country; it is clearly deficient and no longer fit for purpose.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, under my noble friend Lord Blencathra and now under my noble friend Lord McLoughlin, produced a report at the end of last year about the democratic deficit. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which I chair, produced a report on government by diktat. My noble friend the Minister will be fed up with me going on about this, but we are going to go on and on and talk to our colleagues in the Commons until we begin to get a better balance in the way we handle these things. That is, of course, a debate for another day, but in those two reports, we draw attention to the danger of what one might call tertiary legislation—that is, rules and regulations made by bodies that have little or no democratic control over their self-standing and no parliamentary control. It is important that I used the phrase parliamentary control, not government control. I am talking about control by the legislature, not by the Executive.
What I am saying is in no way a criticism of the Electoral Commission, but times change, commission members change just as Ministers change, and I am not convinced, as a matter of principle, that the Electoral Commission should be given too much independence in devising and implementing processes that go to the heart of our democratic system. We may feel that the system for scrutinising secondary legislation is not good enough, but we do at least have a chance to debate it and talk about it in public, here in your Lordships’ House and in the House of Commons. We cannot amend it, and I know that is a weakness, but we do provide a focal point for people who wish to comment on it, raise issues and express their support for it, discontent with it or opposition to it.
I see the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, in her place. The SLSC was very unhappy about some aspects of the procedure the Government followed about GMO and the new regulations, and therefore last night there was a lengthy debate. Could the regulations be amended? No, they could not, but there was a great deal of opportunity for people to express their concerns about that particular regulation. If the Electoral Commission produces a code, ex cathedra, there is no point at which that debate can take place. People can complain about it or write in, but there is no forum where Parliament—again, I say Parliament, both Houses of Parliament—can say its piece about whether it is fit for purpose. After all, it is Parliament that will be most concerned with and most expert in what is being proposed.
I favour Amendment 25, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, which says it should go through the Secretary of State. I assume that when she revises her amendment, she will say “by regulation”: he or she is not just going to write it, it will be by regulation that it would come into force. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, that if he were to amend his amendment to say that the Electoral Commission has to produce a code which will become a statutory code, I think that would also serve the purpose. At present, we need to be very clear that the Electoral Commission is not the answer to everything. There is a need for the democratic process to have some input into the way this is all moving forward, or else we will have a situation where a body may be moving away from the central ethos of what the two Houses of Parliament believe is the right way to conduct things.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
This is an important principle. The noble Lord and I have spent some time looking at the Charity Commission, on which he is much more expert than I am. I used to be able to quote CC9 and other bits of Charity Commission guidance by heart when I was a trustee of a charity. Does he think that the principle he is enunciating should apply to most of these commission regulatory bodies, or is the Electoral Commission a special case?
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
I think the Electoral Commission is a special case because we are talking about an elections Bill, but it goes wider than that. My noble friend Lord Blencathra is hot on this. He has a list of bodies that are, as he would say, running too free, but the Electoral Commission is a special case because of the nature of the Bill we are discussing. A subsidiary question is, do we need more codes elsewhere? I have some amendments down later on, which we shall get to on Thursday, which will provide a way of clarifying and giving third-party campaigners some security and safety about what they are doing— I think that is much more important. However, that is a discussion for Thursday.
My last point is to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, about his Amendment 30B. We have said again and again that we need to have our election law in one place. The fact we are having to discuss RPA 1983 in connection with this Bill in 2022 shows how urgent this is and how the points made across the Committee need to be taken on board by the Government, who at some point need to find time to pull this all together.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I may be able to join up some of the dots in what has just been said, particularly to draw out the position of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, said it would be really useful to know which of the CSPL recommendations the Government believed—or thought or imagined—they had ticked off: which boxes they have ticked and which they have not. Maybe the Minister in reply could undertake to write us a letter which sets out the recommendations and whether the Government have, have not or have partly fitted them into the Bill; I think that would be to the benefit of the debate. Of course, the very first recommendation of the CSPL in that report is that there should be a comprehensive Bill on all election law, as set out by the Law Commission. I know the Minister, in replying at Second Reading, explained that it was all too busy and too complex, so recommendation 1 is not going to happen at this time, but not doing recommendation 1 is causing problems with a whole lot of other things that are happening.
In defence of Amendment 25A, proposed by my noble friend Lord Rennard, the current position is as it was when the Electoral Commission drew up guidance in 2020. It submitted it to the Cabinet Office so that it could be published as a statutory instrument and, whatever the defects of statutory instruments, its guidance would in fact have come before the House. So, there is a downstream process—it may not be very effective, but it does to some extent, I hope, tick that particular box.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, again I welcome this short debate. It was very good to hear from my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. I was not angry about what he said. I agreed with some of his points, and they were certainly points for reflection. There was a point in his speech when I wished he had been the fifth cavalry in the last debate that we had on the Electoral Commission, rather than the 55th, but the 55th cavalry is welcome. I will come on to the question of who is responsible in relation to regulation in a minute. The debate ranged widely, and while the issue of tertiary law, as he put it, and how that is considered, was a little wide of it, I acknowledge it as an important point of reflection.
The Government responded to the CSPL’s report in September 2021. The Bill already contains measures which closely relate to its recommendations. I will look at some of the material which is theoretically before us today, depending on progress. The new requirement for political parties to declare assets and liabilities over £500 on registration was recommendation 10 of the CSPL report. Another recommendation was the restriction of third-party campaigning to UK-based campaigners. These things are set out in Clauses 21 and 24. The Government intend to look at all recommendations from the CSPL, alongside recommendations set out in similar reports, as part of further work on the regulatory framework during and beyond the Bill. I will certainly take those recommendations seriously.
These amendments relate to the clarification of the law on notional expenditure. Some of the ground was covered in previous groups but I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, for their points urging timely publication of new guidance. Irrespective of whether we believe that the law needs clarification or, as is the contention which I have heard on the other side, that it does not, clearly publication of new guidance should be timely. It is the responsibility of the Electoral Commission to provide that guidance to parties and people standing in elections. Clause 19(1) amends the provision in electoral law to provide that the Electoral Commission may prepare guidance on election expenses for candidates. These amendments are to make it clear that the guidance can cover the application of the rules in relation to expenses incurred, including notional expenditure.
I cannot give a specific date, as was requested in both elections, but I assure the House that it must be locked into the process of implementation of the legislation. The responsibility sits with the commission, and therefore technically, siding a little in the debate, I think that the Government would oppose the noble Baroness’s idea of giving the duty to the Secretary of State. However, whoever it is given to, I wish to see guidance as quickly as possible. The Government have confidence that the commission will act promptly. We intend to commence the provisions in this Bill on a staggered basis and we will closely engage the Electoral Commission to ensure the readiness of new guidance at every stage.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
When my noble friend says that he has confidence in the Electoral Commission, which I understand, will this be a statutory code, or will it just be guidance, without any statutory backing?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, there is reference in Clause 19(1) to a duty to provide guidance. I cannot give all the specific details, but it is clearly the intention of the Government that it be covered in that way.
I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, on increasing the threshold at which an election agent is required to approve expenses. The noble Lord is always very thoughtful on these matters. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, referred to the days when £2 was the limit. Clause 20 amends Section 73 of the Representation of the People Act to allow other persons to pay expenses that they have incurred rather than the election agent. This will provide clarity to third parties who have been authorised by a candidate or agent to promote them. The Government are supportive in principle. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Collins, of increasing relevant values by the value of inflation to ensure that they remain as Parliament originally intended. We raised candidate spending limits for local elections in line with inflation before the May 2021 elections, and we intend to review party and candidate spending limits for all other polls—obviously not those within the legislative competence of the Welsh and Scottish Governments—next year, with a view to uprating them in line with inflation since they were originally set. This should create a baseline for regular and consistent reviews of such limits in future.
The noble Lord has raised an important point. Obviously, consideration will have to be given at each stage to ensure that the implications of changing a particular figure are understood. We welcome further discussion on this point, in the spirit which he suggests, but the Government’s intention is that those levels be reviewed next year. For these reasons, I urge that the amendment be withdrawn.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his thorough response to this debate.
On the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Collins around increasing the threshold, I have a slight concern that, rather than necessarily increasing the threshold, we will be saying, “Other people can also pay for things—it’s not just the agent.” Anybody who has been involved with an election and seen a poor agent trying to put the expenses together will know that if people are allowed to just start spending, it can get extremely complicated and sometimes quite worrying, because the agent needs really good control over the money during an election. I just put that into the debate. If this threshold could be reviewed as part of an ongoing review, that would be very a practical and helpful thing that we could all agree on.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for preferring my Amendment 25 to that of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, even though the Minister did not—it is nice to know that somebody felt I was going in the right direction. On the Minister’s response on the CSPL, I was trying to find out about the recommendations that are not included in the Bill—I am aware that some are in it. The Minister said that all the recommendations would be looked at; this House should have an idea of how the Government are taking this forward, whether these things may come forward as SIs in the future, and how they would be implemented.
I was also pleased to hear the Minister say that he believed that publication of new guidance should be both timely and part of the locked-in process of any implementation and that he wants to see the guidance produced as quickly as possible. I thank him very much for his response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Collins of Highbury
“(aa) after sub-paragraph (2), insert—“(2A) The Commission must submit a draft code at least once during each 10 year period.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would amend provisions on the Electoral Commission’s guidance regarding election expenses to ensure that new guidance is published at least once every ten years.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, will speak in this debate, as Clause 19 sort of addresses some of the issues that he raised in the previous discussion.
I am not as old as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, suggested, although I have to confess that I have been around for a very long time. I have had responsibility for the statutory adoption of electoral law, and as a trade union official I have been acutely aware of codes of practice and procedures and their statutory basis, particularly on employment law—but I will not go too much into that. With these amendments I am trying to probe the provisions in Clause 19 which says that we will amend electoral law. Again, that makes the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, made—we have a proliferation of electoral law and there should have been a much bigger piece of legislation to bring everything together so that people whose job it is to apply the law do not have to have this constant reference back to a whole series of requirements.
According to the Explanatory Notes, the clause says that
“the Electoral Commission may prepare guidance on election expenses for candidates. The amendments are to make it clear that the guidance can cover the application of the rules in relation to expenses incurred. This is to ensure that the codes of practice are sufficiently broad and fully serve the purpose of explaining the rules on spending.”
One issue is that we go from codes to guidance. What is what? It is not altogether clear.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, on Amendment 28B, which is about transparency, perhaps the Minister could comment on some of the recommendations in the CSPL report which related precisely to the point of transparency of election expenditure and its availability in electronic form so that it could be studied more widely and easily. Obviously, that clearly requires legislation and might well properly have been in the Bill.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, these amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, relate to existing provisions in electoral law in respect of codes of practice on election expenses for candidates that the Electoral Commission may prepare.
We have included measures in Clause 19 to ensure that any code of practice on candidate spending from the Electoral Commission is sufficiently broad to fully serve the purpose of explaining the rules on candidate spending, which are set out in the Representation of the People Act 1983. We are making this change to put the scope of the guidance beyond doubt. It is important that the guidance is comprehensive, so that we can address concerns raised from across the political spectrum on notional expenditure.
Amendment 25B would require the commission to issue new guidance at least every 10 years. As the noble Lord said, the commission is already able to amend any such code as required from time to time and must reflect the rules as set out in law. Clearly, the Electoral Commission is expected to keep up to date all guidance, including such a code of practice, and revise it as far as necessary to reflect changes in the law. Therefore, there is no need to legislate in such a rigid fashion.
Amendment 25C would require the Secretary of State responsible for approving the code to consult on that code before its approval. It is for the Electoral Commission to consult whomever it considers reasonable to consult before it submits a draft to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can then accept it, with or without modification, and must lay it before Parliament. It is then down to Parliament to consider the code laid before it and decide whether or not to approve it.
Amendment 28A would require the Secretary of State to publish within 12 months of Royal Assent draft legislation to amend the 2000 Act
“for the purposes of increasing the transparency of expenses”.
I say with the utmost respect to the noble Lord that that is quite an imprecise instruction to the Secretary of State. Transparency of electoral expenses is a cornerstone of the UK’s electoral system. Electoral law already has a robust set of controls and reporting requirements which ensure that spending during election campaigns is transparent, and the Bill supports that. Political parties, recognised third parties and candidates are already required to report their election spending, and this includes money they spend on digital campaigning, an issue raised by the noble Lord.
Lord Stunell (LD)
I apologise if I was misunderstood. I was referring not to digital campaigning but to the digital submission of election expenses. At the moment, they are often kept in a cupboard in the returning officer’s office and are not accessible in any way. There are also issues of data redaction, and so on, which make it more complex.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
I will take that back and get an answer for the noble Lord. It is an important issue, as the way we will do elections in future will be very different because of new IT.
As I was saying, the new digital imprints regime will also improve the transparency of digital campaigning, requiring those promoting campaign content online, paid and unpaid, to clearly show who they are. With that said, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her comments. Of course, I am trying to get on record some political points here, so I am going to repeat them. I understand the statutory requirements for consultation by the Electoral Commission, but there is often a failure to consult beyond the political parties, and we need to ensure that that is properly addressed. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, made a very good point about transparency: if I wanted to look into a particular record, it is extremely difficult to do so, and there are ways to make it easier.
In later debates we will return to the issue of transparency, particularly when we get to Clauses 26 and beyond, but in the light of the Minister’s comments, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the amendment currently made by Clause 19 in relation to paragraph 14A of Schedule 4A to the Representation of the People Act 1983.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment secures that the amendment made by Clause 19(3) in relation to the procedure for orders under paragraph 3(7) of Schedule 8 or 8A to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 does not apply where an order under either of those provisions is made by the Welsh Ministers.
“(4) In subsection (4C) of that section, for “(3)” substitute “(3)(a) or (b)”.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment secures that the amendment made by Clause 19(3) in relation to the procedure for orders under paragraph 3(7) of Schedule 8 or 8A to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 does not apply to orders made by the Scottish Ministers.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment confines the effect of the amendment made by Clause 20 in relation to section 73(5) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, so that it does not apply to expenses incurred in relation to local government elections in Wales.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the amendment currently made by Clause 20 in relation to section 73 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 as it applies in relation to local government elections in Scotland.
Lord Khan of Burnley
“(4) Within 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a statement on the application of this section in—(a) England;(b) Wales;(c) Scotland;(d) Northern Ireland.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe the application of Clause 20 in devolved administrations.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I introduce Amendment 30A on behalf of my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury. The intention of the sole amendment in this group is to probe the application of Clause 20 in devolved Administrations. The purpose of the clause is to ensure that expenses incurred under Section 75 by a third party do not have to be paid by the election agent. This is achieved primarily through amendments to Section 73 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. Ministers have previously explained that this means that they are able to both incur and pay for authorised expenses under Section 75, rather than the expenses being paid through the agent of the candidate they are promoting. As a result, there will be greater clarity to third parties who have been authorised by a candidate or agent to promote them. I am sure the whole House will agree that greater clarity is important, especially considering the complexity of electoral law, including the system of election expenses. However, I should be grateful if the Minister explained in what different ways this will affect elections in each of the four nations of the United Kingdom.
The development of separate legislatures since the 1990s has seen the gradual transfer of powers to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This has included powers relating to the holding of elections, which has also meant that, over time, there have been disparities in the way that elections take place across the four nations. Most strikingly, the voting system differs, which in turn has created broad differences in how each legislature is constituted, but the variations go far beyond the surface.
There are many more subtle differences at a granular level, but it is also worth mentioning that the differences between Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England originated before even the first devolution settlements. This is evident from even a brief examination of Section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which is amended by this clause. This section, which deals with the narrow matter of prohibition of expenses not authorised by an election agent, includes technical references to how this should not mistakenly restrict certain publications and so on. Subsection (1ZZA) clarifies that this includes Sianel Pedwar Cymru, more commonly known as S4C, as well as the British Broadcasting Corporation, more commonly known as the BBC. Ultimately, this illustrates that devolution has created huge complexities across the statute book and, on the sensitive issue of elections, the Government must be considerate of that.
On our previous day in Committee, a pertinent point was raised by my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, who explained to the House that, out of more than 350 legislative consent Motions, consent had been denied just 13 times. Given that this Bill is subject to one of those 13 denials, the House and indeed the Government should be especially considerate of how the remaining clauses could inadvertently have consequences for the devolved nations. As my noble friend also pointed out, the Minister previously expressed his regret at the decision to withhold consent; this disagreement should also be kept in mind when considering the implications of different clauses of the Bill in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
I hope that the Minister will use this opportunity to explain to the Committee what, if any, consequences she foresees of Clause 20 for the devolved nations. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the Bill delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitment to secure the integrity of elections, ensuring that they remain secure, fair, transparent and up to date. The UK Government undertook extensive engagement with the devolved Administrations in preparing the policy and drafting the legislation. For a number of measures that are within devolved competence, the UK Government considered that a co-ordinated UK-wide approach would have been beneficial by ensuring consistency and operability for electoral administrators and those regulated by electoral law, and strengthening protection for electors and relevant political actors. It is therefore regrettable that, while the Government sought legislative consent for these measures, the Scottish Parliament has not granted such consent and the Welsh Government have recommended that the Senedd does not grant legislative consent to these measures.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make a statement on the application of Clause 20 in devolved Administrations. This measure will apply only to candidates at reserved elections, and the Scottish and Welsh Governments could choose to replicate these measures in respect of elections within their legislative competence. For clarity and reference, I remind noble Lords that subsections (2) to (7) of Clause 18 make equivalent amendments in respect of other campaigners, including political parties.
We are respecting the request of the devolved Governments by limiting this power in application only to elections within the UK Government’s legislative competence. Clause 25 is necessary because it is important that new categories of campaigner can be added to the list if necessary. This is because the introduction of the restriction on third-party expenditure in Clause 24 means that any category of campaigner not on the list will be significantly restricted in their ability to campaign by not being able to spend more than £700.
The relevant provisions will apply only to matters of reserved or excepted elections, and the Bill makes an important clarification, so that candidates and their agents can have full confidence about their legal responsibilities and do not need to fear being responsible for benefits in kind of which they had no knowledge. The Scottish and Welsh Governments could choose to replicate these measures within their legislative competence.
Finally, I will reiterate that the Electoral Commission will be responsible for preparing guidance on notional expenditure which will support those seeking to contest elections and enter public life throughout the whole of the UK. With that said, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that comprehensive response. Just to reiterate, we will continue to have discussions around devolution, as it is affected by many parts of this Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe the £500 limit.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, we have now come to the seventh group of amendments, where there are two amendments, Amendment 30C, in the name of my noble friend Lord Collins, and Amendment 31, in my name. Both amendments are probing amendments to Clause 21, which concerns the registration of parties and considers the declaration of assets and liabilities to be provided on application for registration.
One thing that the clause does is introduce the requirement that new political party registrations will have to be accompanied by a declaration that the new party does not have assets over £500 on registration. If it does have assets of over £500, it will be required to produce a record of those assets and liabilities. The amendment looks at the figure of £500 and suggests that it should be changed to £450. The purpose is simply to probe the reasoning behind the figure of £500 and to ask for some information about how that figure was arrived at, whether there was a precedent, and so on.
One thing that I am aware at in looking at the figure of £500 is that the Electoral Commission’s 2018 report, Digital Campaigning: Increasing Transparency for Voters, which I am sure we will debate later on when we get to the digital campaigning part of the Bill, recommended that all new parties should submit a declaration of assets and liabilities over £500 on registration. I wondered whether perhaps that was where the figure came from; it would be useful to understand. Obviously, those recommendations were intended to increase the transparency of digital campaigns and help prevent foreign funding of elections and referendum campaigns. So this is really to probe government thinking: did it come from this group and will be looked at and discussed when we get to the digital campaigning part of the Bill? It would be helpful at this stage to know that.
My Amendment 31 is, again, a probing amendment, looking at the proposals amending Section 28(8) of PPERA about the length of time that the copy of the record of assets and liabilities provided by the party should be kept available for public inspection. The Bill says that this should be for
“such period as the Commission think fit”.
My amendment suggests replacing that with 20 years, as we felt that that seemed like a reasonable amount of time and gave more clarity and detail as to how long a record would be kept available for public inspection. Again, I would be interested to hear from the Minister how that wording came to be decided on and what the criteria are that the Electoral Commission will use to determine a fit amount of time. I do not know whether there is a precedent anywhere else in legislation that has guidance for a fit amount of time. Will the Government be providing guidance on that issue? Are we out of the ball park with 20 years, or are we in the right place? Are there any other areas of electoral law—or similar law, if not specifically electoral law—that the commission would use as some kind of comparison when looking at decisions on that?
I read the Explanatory Notes to see whether there is anything further on this, but there did not seem to be any more information than what is already in the Bill. It would be helpful to get a better understanding of the Government’s thinking on these points, how they intend to take that forward, how they will work with the Electoral Commission and what kind of guidance there might be.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have one further question to add to the questions that have been put to the Minister. New subsection (3C), which will be introduced by Clause 21, refers to calculation of assets and liabilities. Noble Lords will be aware that, as an accountant, I get interested in how assets and liabilities are measured. I understand the concept of net assets, which is assets minus liabilities, and the concepts of gross assets and gross liabilities. What I do not understand is the concept in new subsection (3C)(c) of assets plus liabilities. Under this, if a party had assets of £255 and liabilities of £250—that is, they had net assets of £5—adding the assets and liabilities together would give a figure of over £500, which would bring it within the scope of the new subsection, which, frankly, I do not understand.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I will comment on Amendment 31, which is about record-keeping. I return to the point I made a few minutes ago: it is about not just keeping the records but access to the records that have been kept. There are plenty of “publicly available” records that are not actually publicly available in real life. Election expenses are a case in point: GDPR has added an extra layer of complexity because they often contain personal details, bank details, addresses et cetera that ought not to be transmitted to other persons. Clearly, these records might well come within the same purview. I do not seek a detailed reply from the noble Baroness as that would be quite unfair, but I hope that, as we proceed, the Government will be able to illustrate that they have considered carefully issues of record-keeping, and, indeed, how the transparency that goes with record-keeping will be maintained in the current and projected circumstances.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, as part of the registration process, political parties are not currently required to submit a declaration of their assets or liabilities. This information becomes available only in their first annual statement of accounts published on the Electoral Commission’s website. Clause 21 brings forward this important transparency to the point of registration.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, tabled a probing amendment seeking to understand why the threshold for this declaration is set at £500. I am pleased that the noble Lord has highlighted this, and I point to the fact that this measure, including the £500 threshold, was first recommended by the Electoral Commission in its 2013 report.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
If it was a 2013 report, and thinking of inflation, I wonder whether that should have been reconsidered, to come back to an earlier discussion.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The noble Baroness has now undermined the argument about going up rather than down. I have checked that, because I know the noble Baroness mentioned 2018. I have 2013, but I will clarify that. It was also more recently recommended in the CSPL’s July 2021 Regulating Election Finance report, which is more up to date. It would not be proportionate to require parties with assets below £500 to submit this declaration.
On a similar topic, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, tabled a probing amendment to understand why the clause specifies that the Electoral Commission should make this statement available for as long as it sees fit. This is simply a matter of consistency with the existing approach to assets and liabilities declarations contained in a party’s annual statement of accounts. Under Sections 45 and 46 of PPERA, the commission is able to keep documents, including the annual statement of accounts, for
“such period as they think fit.”
Therefore, this is simply a technical provision, enabling this first assets and liabilities declaration to be compared with various subsequent records provided by political parties in their annual statements of accounts.
I will write to my noble friend Lady Noakes on her very interesting question, to which I would like to know the answer as well. I will place a copy in the Library so that we are all aware of it. That said, I urge noble Lords not to press these amendments.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her response. Like her, I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked an extremely interesting question that did not occur to me when I read through the Bill. It was a very thoughtful question to take forward. I am interested to see where that goes.
The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, made an important point about access to records and transparency of record-keeping. It is important that we all take that on board. The Minister gave a clear response on the reasoning behind this.
On my Amendment 31, which would delete the phrase
“such period as the Commission think fit”,
it is interesting to note that this is consistent with what PPERA says. I was not aware of that, so I thank the Minister for that. I wonder whether there is any guidance as to what it means—I have no idea whether it is five or 50 years. It would be interesting to know a little more about that and what happens in practice, so that there will be more information in that area as we take this forward.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I will endeavour to find out exactly what was behind that and let the noble Baroness know, and I will also address the point about transparency and access to all these figures, because that is important. It is no good keeping them unless they are easily available to any person who wants to see them. We will take that back and respond.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that clarification. I look forward to her response. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Collins of Highbury
“(8D) The Commission must refuse an application by a party under this section if assets are declared which are designated under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe the relationship between sanctions and the registration of parties.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, this is a probing amendment, but it is highly topical. I am trying to see the relationship between the registration of parties and the sanctions legislation that we recently adopted. Following yesterday’s consideration of the fast-tracked Bill, Liz Truss plans to name even more people. It would certainly make it easier for Ministers to impose sanctions on those with Kremlin links. One of the things we addressed last night was the loopholes that have allowed oligarchs and kleptocrats to evade scrutiny. They have been quite successful in hiding their assets, certainly property—an issue we have discussed for quite a long time.
One of the things that I have been banging on about quite a bit is the Russia report and its recommendations on security risks to our democracy from interference from foreign powers and how we address that issue. We addressed this at Second Reading. It is not just some of the messaging and social network-type interference which we have seen, particularly in the US but also here, but about how our political parties are funded.
Boris Johnson told the House of Commons that
“it is very important for the House to understand that we do not raise money from Russian oligarchs.”—[Official Report, Commons, 23/2/22; col. 313.]
For many of us, it was very difficult to take that remark seriously when we look at some of the records that have been exposed. It is obviously impossible for someone with only Russian nationality, however rich, to donate legally to a United Kingdom political party, but what has undoubtedly happened is that a series of people with dual UK/Russian nationality, or with significant business links with Russia, have donated heavily to the Conservatives in recent years. Based on electoral information, Labour has estimated that donors who have made money from Russia or Russians have given £1.93 million to the Tory party or to constituency associations since Johnson became Prime Minister. In the other place, Ian Blackford of the SNP referred to the Conservatives having raised £2.3 million from Russian oligarchs.
I recognise that “oligarch” is a loose term associated with people who generally made their money from the financial free-for-all of the post-Soviet, Putin era, but those people often keep a very close link with the Russian President. One reason the legislation is so important is the connections. You can have a permissible donor who is linked very closely to someone who is not a permissible donor, and if the links to the assets and the finances are obscure it is difficult to follow the money, as Liz Truss said.
One of the biggest single donors to the Conservative Party is Lubov Chernukhin, who has donated £700,000. She has been a British national since 2011 and is married to Vladimir Chernukhin, a former deputy finance Minister under Putin. Documents published in the Pandora papers in October suggest that he was allowed to leave Russia in 2004 with assets worth about $500 million and to retain Russian business connections. Lawyers representing the couple say that none of the wealth was acquired in a corrupt manner and none of Vladimir Chernukhin’s wife’s donations was funded by improper means or affected by the influence of anyone else. That is extremely difficult to understand when you look at some of the documents in the Pandora papers published by the Guardian. Lubov Chernukhin is also notable for winning the prize of a game of tennis with Boris Johnson at the party’s 2020 fundraising ball. It is not clear whether she has managed to get that prize yet.
That shows us the extent of foreign money coming into our political process and our political parties. The reason I am raising that on this clause is that we have yet to see political parties being established for the purpose of undermining the political system we have. I anticipate all kinds of reactions from friends of Putin—to put it that way—that we have not seen before. If our sanctions legislation gets stronger and we have the economic crime Bill that we anticipate seeing in the next Session, we may see this hidden money going in different ways that will perhaps have less scrutiny but very strong connections. I am probing this to see what the Government have thought of in terms of transparency in the establishment of political parties and what they are going to do about the broad recommendations of the Russia report, which they have not really taken into account. We will certainly be returning to the question of donations to political parties later in consideration of the Bill, but I thought that this was an opportunity to look at whether there has been any risk assessment by the Government of how political parties that could fundamentally undermine our system may be established and funded. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I am conscious that there are other democracies in Europe which have parties on the right that have admitted to receiving money from Russia as loans or as grants. Happily, this country is not in that position, but a number of shadows hang over our politics and we have got quite close to it on a number of occasions. It currently affects the Government because they refused to publish the evidence the Intelligence and Security Committee collected on foreign interference in British politics four years ago and they have not yet published the evidence on the suitability of those who came in on the golden visa scheme between 2000 and 2015. That report was commissioned four years ago. If one goes back to the referendum campaign, so far as I am aware, we still do not know where the largest donation to the Brexit campaign came from, although I had one very odd conversation with a senior member of the City of London who told me that everyone knew that it came from a particular foreign country. There are issues here. We shall return to them when we get on to donations.
I mark in general that this is yet another reason why we should be lowering the limits on campaign spending at national and constituency level, not raising them, because money corrupts politics. I think that the Conservative Party has come close to corruption in the way it has very successfully expanded its fundraising, with the creation of a donors’ club. I have read on the front page of the Times that donors have said that they are unhappy about what the Prime Minister is doing on this, that and the other, and that clearly shows that donors influence politics to a considerable extent in the Conservative Party.
Yes, of course, we are all guilty. My party has also accepted one or two large and very welcome donations which were a little bit questionable. That is because we are so desperate for money for campaigning—and it is part of the reason why I agree that we should be lowering limits. So, I support the probing amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Collins. We will return to this on a later day in Committee. It is a fundamentally important issue for British politics, because part of what is corroding public trust in politics at present is the deep suspicion that money buys Ministers.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I too rise to support the probing amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Collins. Things are moving fast and this Bill needs to keep up, particularly over sanctions. For example, last Thursday Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin was sanctioned by the UK. One of the Conservative Party’s biggest donors is an investor in this Russian state-owned oil firm. The energy firm Mercantile & Maritime, which has a UK subsidiary, gave the Conservatives £500,000 during the 2019 election campaign and is a co-investor in the massive Rosneft oil project. Rosneft is close to Vladimir Putin and has been supplying fuel to Russia’s troops in Ukraine.
The Secretary of State for Business made it very clear that he pressurised the British UK energy firm BP over a similar deal with this oil company, prompting BP to announce its exit from the partnership. However, the Government have been silent about the MME link. They say that this is because it is not a British company, but MME does have a British subsidiary, which clearly means that it can donate to British political parties, both at and outside election time. So, my question to the Minister is this: how would donations by subsidiaries such as MME be recorded, or the relationship between a sanctioned company and one of its subsidiaries be highlighted, in political party donations?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for initiating this debate, which has been interesting. One of the most memorable moments, perhaps, was when the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, suggested that the British people voted to leave the European Union because of Vladimir Putin. If that is the official view of the Liberal Democrats—
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I in no way suggested that. I merely remarked that the question of where the largest donation to the Brexit campaign came from has not been explained, which is entirely different. I trust that the Minister is also concerned about that, rather than making jokes about it.
Lord True (Con)
I made no joke. I drew attention to the noble Lord’s remarks, and they will stand on the record. So far as this matter is concerned—and I have heard the cascade of innuendo ending with the remark that Ministers can be bought, which will also lie in Hansard—I move on to a serious response to a serious—
Lord Scriven (LD)
The Minister talks about inuendo; can he say which innuendo? What I spoke about is on the record: it is a clear donation and the links between MME and Putin’s state-backed oil company are clear.
Lord True (Con)
I stand by the remarks I made in response to comments from the Front Bench of the Liberal Democrat party. I would like to—
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord reads the Sunday Times—perhaps he only reads the Sunday Telegraph—but the Sunday Times in the last two weeks has included a good deal of evidence on the role of the donors, access to Ministers and what one of the Conservative Party’s largest donors has called “access capitalism”. Perhaps he has missed all that.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I was working on my allotment on Sunday morning. I will come to the point that was raised by the noble Lord opposite, which I take extremely seriously. It is a probing amendment but an important subject. I have discussed it with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. I look forward also to engaging in discussions when we come to her amendments, which are on an analogous subject.
What the noble Lord suggests is, obviously, on the face of it, a good idea: that the commission should reject the application of a political party if its declaration of assets and liabilities demonstrates assets designated under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. I absolutely recognise the importance of that regime, although a debate on its intricacies does not fall within the scope of this Bill. I do not make any complaints about that, however, and I am happy to address it because of the gravity and importance of the issue.
On the specific point the noble Lord raises—I will be brief—sanctions law is incredibly clear: all individuals and legal entities who are within, or undertake activities within, the United Kingdom’s territory must comply with UK financial sanctions that are in force. This includes not only political parties but candidates and other types of campaigners listed in the relevant areas of the legislation. Where a person or entity is designated as subject to financial sanctions, the nature of the resulting restrictions means that the person’s assets are frozen and consequently that person would be prohibited from using those assets for any purpose. This would include the funding of a political party.
While the Government entirely agree with the principle that sanctioned assets should not be used for the benefit of anyone—including prospective political parties, which we are discussing specifically on this amendment— we believe that the current sanctioning regime already provides for this and we remain to be convinced that an additional provision is required in this Bill. I am sympathetic to the noble Lord’s intentions here. I believe that his point is already acknowledged but, in the light of the importance of the matter that he has raised, I will make doubly sure that that is the case. With that assurance, I hope he feels able to withdraw his amendment. I am ready to discuss the matter with him further, as we have already engaged.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that response. We will return to this issue. I opened my remarks with the Russia report. The Government have said that they have responded to every recommendation, but one remaining issue is interference in our political system. We will have a future debate on donations but it is important to focus on this specific issue. We will see things in future that we have not seen before in terms of attempts to undermine our system, and we have to be prepared for that. I was very pleased that the legislation went through—I would like to have seen even stronger elements to it—but even in today’s Guardian, people are saying that many ways remain for oligarchs to get around transparency declarations, including not only offshore companies but “five close relatives”, who can shift assets so that none of them reaches the 25% ownership level required. We know that people can try to get round these things, and we need to be absolutely vigilant.
I appreciate the Minister’s comments, and that he will come back and speak to me further; in the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Shale Gas Production
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my right honourable friend Greg Hands MP to an Urgent Question in another place:
“In response to Putin’s barbaric acts in Ukraine and against the Ukrainian people, we need to keep all our energy options open. We have always been clear that the development of shale gas in the UK must be safe and cause minimal disruption and damage to those living and working in nearby sites. This is not a new position. Shale gas and new approaches could be part of our future energy mix, but we need to be led by the science and have the support of local communities. That was in our general manifesto, on which my honourable friend and I stood at the last election.
The pause on fracking implemented in November 2019 on the basis of the difficulty in predicting and managing seismic activity caused by fracking remains in place, and we will continue to be led by the science in our approach. We are clear that shale gas is not the solution to near-term issues. It would take years of exploration and development before commercial quantities of shale gas could be produced. Additionally, fracking relies on a continued series of new wells, each of which produces gas for a relatively short time. Even if the pause were lifted, there are unlikely to be sufficient quantities of gas available to address the high prices affecting all of western Europe and it would certainly have no effect on prices in the near term.
As the Business Secretary has said, we will continue to back our vital North Sea oil and gas sector to maximise domestic production while transitioning to cheaper, cleaner, homegrown power at the same time. We will shortly set out an energy supply strategy that will supercharge our renewable energy and nuclear capacity, as well as supporting our North Sea oil and gas industry.”
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s consideration of fracking is a potentially dangerous and risky policy that neither addresses the real concerns about future affordable energy supplies nor contributes to achieving our net-zero targets. Surely, a better way to proceed would be to reintroduce government support for onshore wind as a cheap and generally reliable fuel source—it was abandoned by the then Conservative Government in 2015. Will the Government now reconsider this damaging decision by reinstating their support for major onshore wind farm developments?
Lord Callanan (Con)
As the noble Lord is aware, there was a further contracts for difference round held in December and onshore wind was able to bid into it. We will be announcing decisions on that shortly.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, in 2014 Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the then NATO Secretary-General and former Prime Minister of Denmark, told a Chatham House meeting in London that Putin’s Government were behind attempts to discredit fracking across Europe. He said that Russia had
“engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organisations - environmental organisations working against shale gas - to maintain European dependence on imported Russian gas.”
In 2017, the US media and Congress picked this up too. The propaganda and scare tactics also became prevalent in the UK. If energy security was not a concern before, it certainly should be now. Does my noble friend agree with me that it is vital that we need to become energy self-sufficient sooner rather than later, and that we should no longer rule out shale gas extraction in the United Kingdom?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her remarks. I suspect that she is probably right that there was an unholy alliance between Putin and some of the more extreme end of our environmental movement. Of course, both had the same objective in mind: to rule out shale gas production. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that there were some serious problems caused by the attempted fracking in Lancashire. I take the point which my noble friend is making. We are not ruling it out. If the scientific objectives can be overcome, and the tremors which were caused can be solved, it is potentially an option for the future.
Lord Oates (LD)
Is the Minister aware of the remarks made this afternoon upstairs by the former Kenyan Prime Minister and current presidential candidate, Raila Odinga, about the impact of climate change on his country, including increased droughts and flooding and deteriorating food security? Does the Minister share my concern that those advocating fracking do not seem to recognise that it would provide no solution to the current energy crisis, would lock us into dependency on fossil fuels and takes no account of the climate emergency? In this situation, is it not the number one priority to reduce the amount of energy which we are wasting?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I have not seen the remarks to which the noble Lord is referring. Of course, we still have our commitments to net zero, which is now a legally binding commitment, but the reality of this situation, which we have debated many times before, is that there is a need for fossil fuels during the transition—unless we are proposing to disconnect everyone’s gas boiler and stop them driving their cars tomorrow, which I do not think is anyone’s sensible position. We need fossil fuels during the transition. It is unarguable that it makes much more sense to try to get those fossil fuels from our own production, rather than relying on Putin or other unstable parts of the world. Having said that, we also need to progress our nuclear generation capacity and invest in renewables, which we are doing. We are talking about quadrupling our renewables capacity from offshore wind alone, from something like 4 gigawatts up to 10 gigawatts. We need to be doing all those things; we need a diversity of supply.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I welcome elements of this Statement from the Government on fracking, particularly the reference to the support of local communities. This implicitly acknowledges the huge amount of work and passion that was put in by anti-fracking campaigners from Balcombe to Preston New Road, and many other places. However, the last two sentences of this Statement essentially repeat a desire to maximise North Sea oil and gas production. Last year, the Government, as the chair of the COP 26 climate talks, commissioned the International Energy Agency to produce a report which advised that no new fossil fuel exploration or development should take place from this year, if the world is to stay below 1.5 degrees centigrade. Does the Minister agree that this Statement does not line up with maximising North Sea oil and gas?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am slightly nervous now if the noble Baroness is welcoming a Statement which we have made. We might have made a mistake in our energy policy—sorry, I am being facetious.
The difficulty with the Green Party’s position is that they say that everything should be done with renewables, but that does not give us solutions to the problems in the near term. This is a gradual transition. We already have some of the largest quantities of offshore wind and renewables in the world. I accept that the position of the noble Baroness is that we should go even further and faster, but we are progressing as fast as we possibly can. We have huge investments going into renewables. However, we need fossil fuels in the short term—unless the Greens are also proposing that we should stop driving our petrol and diesel fuel vehicles and disconnect our gas boilers. This is a gradual transition; there is a need for fossil fuels during the transition, and the independent Committee on Climate Change has accepted that. Even the noble Baroness might think that it was probably more sensible to gain those fuels during the transition from our own domestic production, rather than from Putin.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I also welcome the Minister’s Statement. It is good to hear what the Minister said in general. Historically, I have not been that opposed to fracking done under absolutely the right conditions. However, he is absolutely right that the development period would now be far too long. History has moved on, and gas has to be cut down rather than supplied locally. For renewables developments such as offshore wind, which the Minister mentioned, the gestation period for those sort of investments is still something like 10 to 12 years from when the Crown Estates goes out and makes an offer. Does the Minister have any views about how that period can be cut down, without in any way compromising on the environmental investigation aspect? It seems to me that we should be able to do that sort of stuff quicker.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes a good point; I think he has put his finger on the nub of the problem. Whenever there is a crisis in politics—and there is definitely a crisis at the moment—there is always a search for quick and easy solutions. Unfortunately, on energy infrastructure, there are no quick and easy solutions: these things take years, if not decades, to put into operation. We are progressing nuclear power, as indeed we should, but nothing is going to happen for a number of years—possibly not until the start of the next decade. We already have in motion the expansion that I mentioned earlier of offshore wind. We have the targets in place for 2030 and those developments are already proceeding.
The same problem occurs with the search for new licensing fields in the North Sea, if we push ahead with it: it will be a number of years before new fields can be developed. Even if we did progress shale, it would be a number of years—possibly a decade—before we would get meaningful quantities of gas out of the ground, even if we overcame all the environmental objections. I am afraid that there are no easy silver bullets to this problem. It is probably a silver buckshot: there are lots of different smaller-scale solutions that we will need to develop over a number of years.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
Will the Minister expand on the investment of microgeneration at local level? At Bishop Auckland, one of the local estates is having a massive transformation through solar being installed on all the rooms on that estate. Could not more money be put into that? Let us forget fracking, to be honest, because it is not going to deliver us anything at any time.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Yes, is the short answer to the right reverend Prelate’s question. We are supporting microgeneration with feed-in tariffs et cetera, but we need to be cognisant of the scale of the problem. Microgeneration—solar panels, small wind turbines, small-scale running-water power, et cetera—will make a contribution, but it is unlikely to solve the problem in the meantime. We are talking about a few megawatts as opposed to the gigawatts we need in total. It would, however, make a contribution, and it is already making a contribution. Government policy is to support small-scale microgeneration, but it is unlikely to be a long-term solution to our problem.
National Shipbuilding Strategy
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the latest iteration of the Government’s shipbuilding strategy is overdue. Funding contained in it was first announced two years ago. However, it is welcome, and I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the House this evening to answer our questions.
The Defence Select Committee’s report last December highlighted how stretched the Navy’s capabilities are, with a danger that it will not be able to cope with the increasingly complex international security environment. It warns that an unexpected crisis could break it. It is vital that the Government do what is needed to avoid that dire outcome. The report urges collaboration with the UK shipbuilding sector by providing an assured pipeline of work and actively intervening to support the modernisation of yards to support the delivery of new vessels into an expanded fleet capable of fulfilling the ambition of the integrated review.
However, the strategy does not confirm the total number of ships the Royal Navy will receive. Can the Minister confirm today how many Type-32 frigates and multi-role support ships will be built and delivered? Does the “more than £4 billion” of government investment over the next three years cover any of the cost of the 150 ships in the 30-year pipeline to which the Statement refers? How much of this is new money?
Beyond this, there are two major problems with the strategy. First, why does the strategy not promise a British-built by default approach to procurement? This, as the GMB and Unite have highlighted, will kill investment and put UK jobs and skills at risk. A commitment to ensure that ships are built in UK yards, with targets for using UK steel, would build resilience in our supply chains and protect our security.
Steelmaking is a crucial component of our national security and our ability to act in our own interest. What steps will the Government take to improve the public procurement of UK-made steel in shipbuilding in order to preserve and promote jobs that are of vital importance to steel communities and the UK’s strategic independence? What is more, with foreign bidders supported by their own Governments, British shipyards are not even able to compete on a level playing field. None of this feels in line with the Government’s levelling-up strategy.
We know that a British-built by default strategy would create more jobs, but frankly, we do not know how many new jobs there will be a result of the strategy as it is. Can the Minister tell us? The Government seem to keep updating their excuses as to why we continue to procure from elsewhere, such as with a £10 million contract awarded to a Dutch yard last week. No other shipbuilding nation would act in this way. What the Defence Secretary has said is that fleet solid support vessels will be built by “British-led teams” following the decision to award the competitive procurement phase design contracts earlier this year. How is “British-led” defined? What percentage of the construction and manufacture of fleet solid support vessels will take place in British shipyards?
Secondly, the strategy does not tackle long-lasting issues of mismanagement and delivery at the Ministry of Defence. As it stands, no major shipbuilding programmes are rated on time or on budget by the National Audit Office. The number of projects rated amber or red is increasing. We know from previous experience how easy it is to underestimate both the resources and time needed for large contracts to be delivered. Can the Minister tell us what specific initiatives will be put in place to achieve on-time and on-budget outcomes? Moreover, while on the subject of contracts, I am curious about the minimum 20% weighting for social value that the strategy says will be applied for MoD shipbuilding competition. Can the Minister explain what this means in more detail? How will social value be assessed?
On a wider point, the strategy assumes a level of investment from the private sector into research, development and manufacturing. The mood seems to be that a forward-looking strategy providing a glimpse of the future to the sector will be enough to generate investment. I find this optimistic. Can the Government confirm their belief that the private sector will invest at the levels necessary without direct funding from Government? As I mentioned earlier, not having a British-built by default strategy makes this optimism even more farfetched. Is the Minister not concerned?
Those are my two main areas of concern, but I have some further questions on other aspects of the strategy. The strategy establishes the Maritime Capability Campaign Office within the Department for International Trade as the export arm of the National Shipbuilding Office. This will supposedly turbocharge UK shipping exports. Given that this has such a prominent role in the strategy, it is neither unexpected or unwelcome, but without a commitment to using UK materials and shipyards, it seems hollow. Can the Minister therefore indicate what role she expects exports to have in maintaining our shipbuilding industry? Without a commitment to using British materials, does she see the UK as simply a processing centre, to import materials from abroad and sell them on as finished vessels; or perhaps the idea is to contract foreign shipyards and then sell their finished products elsewhere, with the UK acting only as an intermediary?
Finally, with the Spring Statement now only eight days away, can the Minister confirm a big boost for defence funding, both to fulfil the ambition of the integrated review and to respond to the growing threat of Russian aggression?
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I agree with many of the comments and questions from the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. It is obviously welcome to have this refreshed National Shipbuilding Strategy, but one might wonder what has happened to the ships.
We recently looked at the Type 45s. Before we get to the actual shipbuilding, ship maintenance and repair perhaps need to be thought about, so I have one very direct question for the Minister. How many of our Type 45s are currently at sea? How many are in dock? How many are seaworthy? It is surely important for the UK’s position in the world that we have ships available now, not in many years’ time.
In particular, I wonder whether this shipbuilding strategy is as ambitious as it needs to be. The Statement says:
“We have committed to procuring a formidable future fleet including up to five Type 32 frigates”—
as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked, how many are envisaged?—
“alongside the Type 31 and Type 26 programmes. We will be growing our fleet of frigates and destroyers over the current number of 19 by the end of the decade.”—[Official Report, Commons, 10/3/22; col. 505.]
What does that actually mean? Will we have 20 ships by the end of the decade—an additional one? What sort of message do the Government think that sends to the international community? The Prime Minister currently says that he will lead activity against Russia. If we have only 20 ships by 2029—or does that mean 2030?—I am not sure that is terribly credible.
We have a quotation in the strategy from the Prime Minister:
“If there was one policy which strengthens the UK in every possible sense, it is building more ships for the Royal Navy.”
That is clearly welcome—as would be increasing the number of our troops—but, realistically, what are the projections for the size of the Royal Navy? How far do the Government plan for these to be British-made ships with British steel? How far do they really think any defence expenditure settlements will enable us to deliver on time? As the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, pointed out, it is very rare for defence procurement to arrive on time and on budget. With the current rates of inflation, given that defence inflation normally rises much faster than ordinary inflation, what is the realistic prospect of our increasing the number of ships and doing so on time?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for their observations. Although their questions, quite rightly, are penetrating, I think there is an understanding that this is an exciting document. It is not empty, vacuous flim-flam, but a very serious, holistic approach to how within the United Kingdom we sustain and grow a prosperous indigenous shipbuilding industry. I remember that one of the first tasks I had as a Defence Minister, back in 2019, was to present to your Lordships the review by Sir John Parker of the 2017 shipbuilding strategy. I remember thinking at the time that the review document was exciting and visionary.
Coming from Glasgow—or coming from Renfrewshire, near Glasgow—and having personally visited Upper Clyde shipbuilding yards when they were on the brink, I do wish to pay tribute to the trade union movement operational at the time for its assiduous work in making sure that politicians understood what the threats and challenges were. They were well informed and persuasive and I thought they did a splendid job in persuading the political process that, back then in the early 2000s, we had to make a better job of how we approached shipbuilding. I know noble Lords will remember Kvaerner on the Clyde, which was completing one order when there was no certainty about where the rest of the work was coming from. As I say, I pay tribute to the trade union movement for its determined and resolute work to try to get greater sense to prevail.
That is why, stepping forward to what Sir John Parker did in 2019, I drew a deep breath of fresh air and thought that this was really going somewhere. I have to say to your Lordships that I think this shipbuilding strategy really does pick up the baton and run with it. What I see in here are the components for a serious, well-funded, well-researched, well-supported, buoyant, competitive shipbuilding industry within the UK, and we should all be heartened and encouraged by that.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about the size of the Navy. As they are both aware, there are good things happening. For the first time in 30 years, unbelievably, we have two different types of frigate being built simultaneously. We are satisfied that the number of Royal Navy frigates will be sufficient, and we do not anticipate that number dropping below 10 this decade. That is because, in addition to the Type 23s currently serving, we will have the first Type 26s coming in, and we will start to see the Type 31s being delivered, which will all be delivered by 2028. I would observe to your Lordships that the level of shipbuilding investment by the MoD is hugely significant and puts flesh on the bones of this strategy. MoD shipbuilding will double over the life of this Parliament and rise to over £1.7 billion a year. That will certainly allow us to increase the number of frigates and destroyers beyond the 19 we currently have by the end of the decade.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked specifically about the Type 32. That is an exciting project. It is at the moment still at the concept stage, but it will be the first of a new generation of warships, with a focus on hosting and operating autonomous offboard systems. So that is a really innovatory, visionary concept. The early preconcept phase has commenced; the focus is now on developing the operational concept, and the procurement programme strategy will be decided following the concept phase, which has not yet been launched. I can confirm these ships will be UK-built, with the exact shipyard, obviously, still to be determined—that will be subject to commercial competition.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, also asked about the Fleet Solid Support. It is an interesting concept. It will be either a sole British build or a consortium, but the predominant interest will be British. The noble Lord asked how that fitted in with levelling up and the union. I would say to the noble Lord that I was very interested to see the graphic depiction of the map in the document itself, because it gave one of the most visual confirmations of just how critical, right across the United Kingdom, shipbuilding is. It is not just the yards building the ships; it is the huge number of small and medium-sized enterprises that are in the supply chain for that activity. All that plays its role in levelling up and in adding value to communities, which can all expect benefit from the fruits of this strategy rolling out.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about the role that the private sector will play. As he will be aware from the strategy, there has been close consultation with the industry, as is absolutely right. We will establish a shipbuilding enterprise for growth, which will be an industry-based organisation, and we will learn from similar approaches taken in sectors such as the automotive, aerospace and space industries how to take that forward. The private sector has an important role to play in this but, as I say, it has been engaged throughout the refresh of the National Shipbuilding Strategy and is absolutely engaged on the vision contained in it.
It is also interesting to look at the definition of “shipbuilding enterprise” because it gives a good encapsulation of what we are talking about. For the purposes of the refresh:
“The term includes the design; build; integration; test and evaluation; repair; refit; conversion; and support of warships; commercial vessels; workboats; leisure vessels; systems and sub-systems.”
That is a huge range of activity, which, as I said earlier, reaches out right across the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about exports, which are an important component. As he is aware, in relation to the Type 26, we have had an export of design to Canada and Australia. It is important to acknowledge that this is an important departure from the old concept, where you designed a ship and built it so it was solely British and everything remained in the control of the British shipbuilder. The shipbuilding industry has recognised—Sir John Parker identified this back in 2019—that to have resilience and appeal to all sorts of markets, whether they are indigenous markets here or export markets abroad, we need to be able to create things that other people have an interest in acquiring. That is a really exciting development.
The Type 31 has already seen export success, with the announcement in September last year that Indonesia has selected the Arrowhead 140 design for its programme. The UK Government are working closely with Babcock on a number of other export opportunities for the Arrowhead 140; of course, the results of the Miecznik frigate programme in Poland were recently announced, so there is activity there. It is an exciting reflection of what shipbuilding is currently achieving and what the strategy recognises and can build on.
I referred to the defence funding settlement. Both the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, were interested in what lies ahead for defence. We have had the integrated review, the defence Command Paper and what most people regard as a very significant financial settlement for defence. We take nothing for granted. We live in the business of identifying and addressing threat. We have a very engaged Secretary of State who will, I am sure, be alert to how we do that and ensure that the funding is appropriate to whatever we need to deploy to address threat in future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked whether the strategy is ambitious. Again, I was struck by a section in the document on our ambitions for the shipbuilding sector. I will not read it all out but, when I read through it, I felt as though I had had a good glass of gin—I felt uplifted. Look at the headings: “green technology”; “productivity”; “skills”; “autonomy” —developing a domestic regulatory framework for maritime autonomy so that we can lead the way on international maritime organisation—and “exports”. There are a lot of ambitions in here. Perhaps the more pertinent question is: how do we know that we are achieving them? Again, I will not bore your Lordships with the detail but there is a series of metrics which would be a useful device in measuring how we are getting on.
The noble Baroness asked particularly about Type 45s. The power improvement project has been applied to HMS “Dauntless”. She has moved into the test and commissioning phase of her programme. All three new diesel generators have been run. Initial load trials have been completed successfully, and that is a precursor to the rigorous trials programme in harbour before returning to sea later this year for sea trials.
HMS “Daring” has moved to Cammell Laird. It arrived there in September in readiness for commencement of her PIP conversion, which will be carried out during this year. This is a process whereby, as each ship is done, we learn. The other Type 45s will come in depending on operational activities and commitments. They are hugely capable, much-admired ships and are regarded as significant members of the Royal Navy fleet. I think that is a positive picture, and I am satisfied that there will be a good story to tell.
I hope that I have answered all the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
Will the Minister use the usual convention of writing for anything that she has missed out?
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord West of Spithead, I convey to the Minister that, having had a conversation with him, he, like I, welcomes this refresh of the National Shipbuilding Strategy to the extent that it reflects Parker, because it takes a systems approach to these issues. To that extent, it is an energising read.
However, I know that my noble friend would think that that butters few parsnips unless we know when the ships will actually be ordered. The infographic that is figure 3 in the document—I know now how much the Minister likes infographics; I shall come back to figure 1 in a moment—refers to what is called the
“Decision point for future Capability”.
That means absolutely nothing. One or two of them stretch over 14 years. The questions that I think my noble friend would like me to ask are: when are these ships going to be ordered and what ships are going to be ordered on those dates, because that is really important?
Perhaps I may stretch the House’s patience a little to ask my own question. I like the infographic in figure 1 because it shows the extensive, comprehensive nature of this industry across the United Kingdom. The executive summary says:
“The shipbuilding industry supports 42,600 jobs right across the country and adds £2.8 billion to the UK economy. It supports a vast supply chain and skilled jobs around the country in both the civil and defence sectors and delivers world leading capabilities for the Royal Navy.”
That is really encouraging. It is a very comprehensive view of the impact on our economy that the strategy could have as it is refreshed.
The problem is that the National Shipbuilding Strategy which is refreshed is that of 6 September 2017. Let me read to the Minister from the foreword by the then Secretary of State for Defence, Michael Fallon. He said:
“Today some 111,000 people are working in the maritime and marine sectors in the UK, including in the shipyards, supplying the parts, or supporting the equipment that keep this great industry alive, from Appledore to Rosyth and beyond.”
What happened to those 70,000-plus workers within five years of the first strategy?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Lord included a lot of material in his question, and I am not sure I can respond to it all. Let me pick up first on the important figure that he referred to, which is the outline of what shipbuilding will be for the United Kingdom over the next 30 years. That is a very healthy, refreshing and encouraging picture.
I appreciate that the noble Lord wishes to reflect the persistence of his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord West, in wanting to pin down figures. I have covered the timescale for the Type 26 and the Type 31. The noble Lord will be aware that the Type 32 is still in concept, but that will be an exceedingly important addition to the Royal Navy for the reasons that I described earlier, and they will be UK-built.
As the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, referred to, we will also be dealing with not just the fleet support ships but a multirole ocean surveillance ship and a multirole support ship—probably a number of these; these are the ships that will replace the landing platform docks and the landing ship dock auxiliaries in the early 2030s. We will be dealing with the future defence Type 83, which will replace the Type 45 destroyers. It will be a key part of the future of our air defence systems, and will provide wide-area air defence for the carrier strike group from the 2030s. In among all that is a miscellany of other shipbuilding activity.
The noble Lord will understand that I cannot be more specific about dates; it is impossible to do that when much of this is in the concept phase. He will understand that the plans are laid, the need is identified and the political resolve is there to order and deliver these ships.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, a number of noble Lords want to get in with their questions. I urge noble Lords to keep them short, and I am sure my noble friend will also endeavour to give short answers.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I shall do my best to follow the Whip’s instructions. I direct the attention of the Minister and noble Lords to page 29 of this glossy document. I am all for the British Navy getting as many ships as it is possible to provide. I work out roughly that something like 30 ships are promised on that page, but I also see that all this is to be achieved by additional funding of more than £24 billion over the next four years. Given the previous history of procurement of naval vessels in the Ministry of Defence, how can we possibly be confident that the ambition set out here can ever be achieved?
There is one act not of commission but of omission. Where is the reference to four Dreadnought submarines and 40 more warheads—the important nuclear deterrent? Where are they to be paid from if not from the general budget of the department? Once upon a time, they were paid separately, but no longer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr George Osborne, decreed that they must be paid out of the regular defence budget. Why is that not included to give us a more realistic picture?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I will take the last point first. The strategy is quite clear that it excludes the Dreadnought programme, I think for very understandable reasons. That is a separate, clearly identifiable programme standing in its own right. It has been budgeted for. The noble Lord is aware of the contingency fund, and that programme is proceeding.
As for the MoD’s ability to commission and procure the ships to which the noble Lord referred, as further described in the section of the strategy document to which he referred, these are all objectives within the MoD perspective. He will be aware that we have to renew the Navy; that is the systematic programme we have in front of us. I would have thought that some Members from Opposition Benches would be positively green with envy to see what has already been achieved and what the plans are. That all points to a very healthy defence maritime capability.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, our experience in Scotland suggests that Governments are not very good at building ships. There are currently more boats in the Caledonian MacBrayne fleet that entered service when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister than have been launched since the SNP assumed responsibility for Scotland’s ferries. Yesterday only 13 of CalMac’s 29 ferry routes were operating a normal service, and for once this was nothing to do with the weather. How will this strategy ensure that the failures we are seeing in Scotland are not compounded? How will this strategy help the island communities of Scotland?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank my noble friend. I think she and I would certainly echo the sentiment that the island communities in Scotland are crying out for help. She refers to what has been a very unhappy chapter for the Scottish Government in building ships, running essential ferry transport links to Scottish island communities—this being the responsibility of their wholly owned subsidiary, CalMac—and being responsible for the maintenance and renewal of that fleet. This strategy can only help because it provides the components for a prosperous, sustainable UK shipbuilding industry and, engaging as it does with the devolved Administrations, I hope that will enable the Scottish Government to be alert to what is available and to seize the opportunity of taking all help and support. My noble friend is right: there is an urgent need to improve what is a very sorry ferry transport situation in Scotland.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I welcome the strategy announced by the Government and the Statement that has been made. I welcome the opportunities set out in it for yards across the United Kingdom to benefit, thereby helping to strengthen the union. Will the Minister’s department hold discussions with the devolved Governments and the Northern Ireland Department for the Economy about the potential for the Harland & Wolff shipyard in Belfast, with its glorious heritage and wonderful history, to benefit, also thereby contributing to the levelling-up agenda through the indirect jobs that the Minister has referred to?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Yes, and I say to the noble Lord that, of course, the strategy is a cross-government endeavour. It is being delivered by the National Shipbuilding Office, which sits within the MoD, but because it has been designed in partnership with industry to give UK shipbuilders and suppliers confidence to invest in people, facilities and research and development, its implementation will be led by the NSO and will reach across the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is anticipated that there will be engagement with the devolved Administrations, and I referred earlier to the industry-led shipbuilding enterprise for growth body. Between them, we can look forward to a much more cohesive consultation with the industry right across the United Kingdom.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
I thank my noble friend very much for the strategy. Governments and MoDs have had many of these over many years. This has taken some seven years following discussions that Sir John Parker, Admiral Hine and I had, having built quite a few hundred ships, and having made mistakes and learned from them. It is now with us today. What is needed now is the funded plan to deliver a continuous, 30-year pipeline of shipbuilding across the UK—not cost-plus and not guaranteed if performing badly. That will allow industry to get to the right size, drive efficiency and become truly competitive. Authority, money, a plan and cross-party support for a modern digital engineering workforce can deliver. I finish by saying that I would like this country to remain the most powerful member of NATO in Europe, and I am dead against President Macron’s idea for a European army.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his universally acknowledged authoritative comments on this. We all know that he has played a significant part in the development of the shipbuilding industry in the UK, for which we thank him. I do not think there is much appetite for a European army from the United Kingdom; we have as a cornerstone of our defence capability in Euro-Atlantic security our membership of NATO, and that is our primary obligation.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, if I may return to the glorious infographic—figure 1 of the National Shipbuilding Strategy—and wear my north-east hat very strongly at this point, the only north-east reference I could find in the entire document was a little star on the map, yet the north-east at one time was the great shipbuilding hub of the United Kingdom. What affirmation can the Minister give to the continuing shipbuilding work and ship repair work in the north-east and its desire to further expand for the future? Where does steel fit into that? I do not think the Minister answered the question from the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, about steel.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I say to the right reverend Prelate that figure 1, which is now assuming iconic importance in this discussion, is purely illustrative; it is not meant to be a precise geographical identification of every shipyard, but it reflects a broad spectrum, not just of shipbuilders but of the essential supply industry, which is like a set of veins reaching right out across the whole United Kingdom. The shipbuilding strategy, by its nature, means that there is no part of the United Kingdom where shipbuilding takes place that should feel excluded by this: on the contrary, it is included and is integral to what we are trying to do. I hope that any shipbuilding entity in the north-east will feel encouraged, will feel part of this and will feel that it wants to commit to this, with its industry partners, and engage with the Government on how this can all be taken forward. The right reverend Prelate will be aware that the Government currently try to help steel producers by producing an estimated pipeline of what steel orders may be and, in doing that, try to signal where manufacturers may want to be ready to investigate tendering for supply on a contract. I have already said that a number of ships are already committed to using British steel, but one of the technical issues is that not all types of steel are suitable for the particular type of ship being built, so there is the matter of finding suitable product.
Lord Greenway (CB)
My Lords, this refreshed shipbuilding strategy is heavily geared towards naval shipbuilding. Can the Government confirm my reading from it, that we have abandoned all thought of building what I would call ordinary cargo-carrying merchant ships in the future? If we are going to just concentrate on specialist vessels, that is all well and good, but we will not sell too many ships like the “Sir David Attenborough”, whereas ordinary cargo-carrying merchant ships often generate a lot of orders.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Lord is probably better aware than almost anyone in the Chamber of the diversity of shipyard production in this country and the types of ships that the existing yards are capable of producing. The strategy is about not only sustaining and encouraging these shipyards and shipbuilders but introducing the resilience necessary to let them be flexible. He is quite correct that some yards may not be suitable for constructing particular types of ship, and that is matter for individual yards, but it may also be the case, as we have seen, for example, both in Govan and in Rosyth, that the two companies, British Aerospace and Babcock, invested in the infrastructure there because they actually needed to change the physical imprint of what they had to make it suitable for the production of the particular ships they were going to build. This is an opportunity for thinking outside the box and I hope the strategy will encourage shipbuilders to be innovative, be explorative and see if they can investigate what they can do in the future, even if they have not been accustomed to doing it in the past.
Elections Bill
Tuesday 15th March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Elections Act 2022 View all Elections Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 96-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (15 Mar 2022)
Lord Khan of Burnley
“(7B) Subsection (7A) does not apply to a party registered in the Great Britain register in pursuance of a declaration falling within subsection (2)(d) (a minor party).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe the application of this Clause to minor parties.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 31B, 32 and 32A in this group in the names of my noble friends Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lord Collins of Highbury. Amendments 31B and 32 relate to Clause 22, which prohibits an entity registering as both a political party and a third party, which would allow them to access multiple spending limits. I cannot see any reason to oppose this, which would remove a loophole from the level playing field—those words which have been so often mentioned—and maintain the integrity of the existing system.
In the debate on this clause in the other House, a Minister explained that this change was necessary after an entity registered as both during the 2019 general election, therefore abusing the system. Can the Minister confirm which party this was?
Specifically, Amendment 31B intends to probe the application of this clause to minor parties. While we can assume that major political parties, which tend to have governance units, will be aware of these new changes and will be very unlikely to register in both classifications, we should consider whether the same can be said for minor parties. This brings me to Amendment 32, which is intended to probe how the Government will inform third parties of the impact of this section. On the first day in Committee my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock touched on the importance of consultation, and I ask the Minister what consultation there has been on informing third parties of the impact of this section. In particular, I ask about impact assessments on this section. Consultation is particularly important for this Bill. Many of the groups which fall within the definition of third parties can be considered minor organisations which also may not have the necessary structures.
Amendment 32A touches on a similar subject of informing involved parties but relates instead to Clause 23. This clause deals with transitional provision for groups which appear on both registers and would permit them to spend only in one capacity.
I understand that the Minister has been very kind and has had discussions on these matters with my noble friends, but I really hope he can confirm what plans the Government have to involve, engage and inform the relevant parties, and we would really welcome further discussion on this matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I will follow up on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Khan. It is quite puzzling to see how extensive a problem it could be to have entities registered as both political parties and third parties. Indeed, when the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, did his review of the legislation governing third-party campaigning, he said specifically that he did not see this as a significant problem.
I would like to ask the Minister when he comes to reply whether that situation has changed because of the increase in digital campaigning and therefore ask how this would be monitored and enforced. Whose responsibility would it be? Presumably it would be the Electoral Commission’s, but would it require a new set of digital enforcement measures that it has not had previously?
The other issue that I would like to probe is what engagement there will be with entities that might fall into this category. It is not at all clear to me from the Bill where this proposal has come from and how it is envisaged it will work. I think there is considerable concern among non-party campaigners out there which are small entities that they might fall foul of this when not doing anything intentionally wrong. It would be very helpful if the Minister could tell us the extent of the problem that has led to this having to be put into primary legislation.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. Our view is that no group or individual should have access to multiple spending limits at an election. Spending limits exist to ensure that there is a level playing field, a concept that I think we have agreed on already in this Committee, and any opportunities to unfairly expand spending limits should be removed.
The noble Lord opposite asked about specific examples. What is propelling the legislation is principle but, obviously, there is the case from the 2019 UK parliamentary general election when a group claimed that it could do that—that is, expand spending limits by registering both as a political party and as a third-party campaigner. The organisation that we have in mind is Advance Together, which was used to sidestep election spending rules. It registered both as a political party and as a third-party campaigner, effectively to double its spending limits. I do not want to go too deeply into the motivations there, but that organisation ran negative attack campaigns against incumbent MPs who were supporters of Brexit in five target constituencies. It was mainly staffed by former Liberal Democrats seeking to stop Brexit. Indeed, they admitted on Twitter:
“Our candidates are there to be tactical. Not to win.”
Whatever the politics, this was a clear abuse of third-party local spending limits, which are limited to £700 per constituency under the RPA. That dual registration leap-frogged the £700 third-party spending limit in the constituency, allowing the third party to spend the higher candidate limit locally, and obviously to benefit from the national third-party spending thresholds. It is hard to believe that many groups would wish to circumvent the rules in this way, but I think noble Lords would agree that it is probably best to be prudent in this regard.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Just out of interest, with the application for registration as a political party, was there an awareness of the other application as a third party? Did that not get questioned, and could not the existing rules have addressed the issue? Were the two registrations just allowed to take place?
Lord True (Con)
I would have to be advised on that matter. I understand where the noble Lord is coming from, because I agree that it is hard to believe that a group would want to proceed in that way. I shall share with the Committee what information is available on this.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
We on these Benches are totally unaware of this organisation, but I am glad to hear that it was staffed by Liberal Democrats. I am sure the Minister would expect it to be a dastardly Liberal Democrat plot, but I am completely unaware of it. Could his private office provide us with some information and background—there must be some—to inform us of the case, how serious it was and how it was dealt with? It somehow did not hit the Sunday Times on my Sunday morning, just before I got to my allotment.
Lord True (Con)
The noble Lord will be taken to task for not reading the Observer if he keeps coming out with his Sunday morning reading. I was not there and the Government were not there but, looking at the empirical record, we believe that this was a prima facie case. I can report only what information I have: that it was staffed by former Liberal Democrats and operated in five target Liberal Democrat constituencies, but I accept the noble Lord’s assurance that he knew nothing about it.
The clause that we have put in the Bill will prohibit recognised third-party campaigners registering as political parties and gaining access to a spending limit for each registration. The list of individuals and entities permitted to be on the third-party campaigner register will also be amended to remove political parties.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his detailed response. There were some very good contributions from noble Lords; in particular I welcome the point the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, made on monitoring, enforcing and digital campaigning with regard to this clause. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, rightly probed the whole aspect of communication with the Secretary of State in particular and being a third party as well as a political party.
When I asked the Minister a question, I did not want to cause a debate in the Chamber—it was done with good intentions. We look forward to working further with the Minister and I hope that on Sunday, when he is at his allotment, after he has read the Sunday Times, he can reflect on how he will further involve, engage and inform relevant parties. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw.
Member’s explanatory statement
The amendments in Lord True’s name relating to Clause 24 restrict the provision made by that clause, so that it applies only in relation to periods involving parliamentary general elections or general elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
“(za) could not reasonably be expected to have known they were campaigning within a regulated period,”Member’s explanatory statement
This expands the conditions under which a third party may incur controlled expenditure during a regulated period.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 33A, I will speak also to Amendment 39. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for putting his name to the first of those. He has emailed me to say that he is very sorry that he cannot be here and has asked me to apologise to the Committee on his behalf.
This is the first amendment that I have moved. I beg the indulgence of the Committee for a moment so that I can briefly explain the background to all the amendments I propose to this section of the Bill. This preamble will serve as a preamble to all the other amendments we will come to on Thursday—Amendments 39A, 45B, 48A and 54A—and I will therefore foreshorten my speeches on that occasion.
As I explained at Second Reading, I was appointed by the Government to undertake the official review of Part 2 of the inelegantly named Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014. Section 39 of that Act required the Government to appoint a person to undertake a review of Part 2 of that Act in the light of the 2015 general election. My report, in the preparation of which I was greatly helped by a tremendous team from the Cabinet Office, was published in March 2016 and entitled Getting the Balance Right.
What is the balance we should seek to achieve? If we all agree that a vibrant civil society is a really important part of a vibrant democracy, in which everyone feels that they have a chance to have their voices heard collectively as well as individually, we need to ensure, on the one hand, that civil society organisations can speak truth to power—power does not always like having truth spoken to it—and on the other that the activities of those organisations are subjected to a proper degree of transparency. That is the balance that my report sought to achieve.
Finally, I make it clear that all my amendments are probing at this stage. I am looking forward to hearing how the Government react to the shape of the amendments I am putting forward before we get to the next stage.
So with that, to horse. These amendments are concerned with what is known as the regulated period. Members of the Committee will be familiar with the regulated period, but for those who are less familiar I will give a very quick summary. The regulated period is the period during which a third party has to keep a total of all qualifying expenses, which are those that can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote a person or procure electoral success at any relevant election. We shall come back to the intent test later, but the Committee can already see that this will not be as simple as it might be.
Accurate data is very important for third-party campaigners, because the total will determine what category of regulatory regime they come under. Nought to £9,999 means there will be no regulation at all. From £10,000 to £19,999 is the new lower tier; and above £20,000 is the tier that exists, which will continue under the Bill and which requires full registration.
The regulated period was set in the 2014 Act at 12 months. The Bill does not plan to change it. There is a strong argument that this is too long a period. It does not reflect the realities of political life outside the Westminster/Whitehall bubble and it imposes a considerable administrative burden on third-party campaigners, especially smaller ones. As such, it might serve to inhibit third-party campaigning unnecessarily.
Let me explain my thinking a little further. It is important to be clear about what the Government’s legislation seeks to achieve and, in consequence, what it seeks to capture. The strategic, overarching approach must be to increase transparency and reduce the possibility of undue influence.
Most third parties tend to have a primary purpose not connected with campaigning at elections. Only a few third parties have been set up solely to campaign, and we were dealing with some of the by-products of that in the amendments that we have just been discussing. I argue that you can divide the activities of a third party into three broadly discrete areas. The first I describe as advocacy, which can be seen as business as usual. This is the work that a charity or voluntary group does year in, year out: the regular pattern of events and activities, such as setting up branches, recruiting people and trying to get some local or national press. In many cases, it is the bread-and-butter purpose of the particular organisation’s existence.
The second part is what I call political campaigning, which comes more directly in the run-up to a general election. It particularly seeks to attempt to influence the wider debate and political process, to shape the form of the debate and hopefully—this is the gold standard—get one of the major political parties to put some aspect of the third-party campaigner’s objectives into the party manifesto. Of course, the targets of this are primarily Ministers, MPs and Members of your Lordships’ House. I argue that people in that particular category should be well able to look after themselves and aim off if they are being unduly pressurised.
The third area is electoral campaigning, which is activity intended to influence people’s voting choices in the run-up to and during an election, at a time when the general public, defined as the people in the saloon bar of the Dog and Duck or on the Clapham omnibus, are switched on and are thinking about and interested in the political process. So the three key elements can be identified in any campaigning as: when the campaigning is taking place, who the audience is and whether the intent is to influence that audience.
In my view, the regulation of third-party campaigners should be only in respect of electoral campaigning—that is, activity intended to influence people’s voting choices in the run-up to or during an election campaign. It should not be seeking to capture or deal with business as usual advocacy or political campaigning.
So when does the electoral campaigning period begin? In the review, I found little evidence—none, really—of electoral campaigning by third parties a full year ahead of the general election. Such research as there is suggests that, outside the Westminster village, the level of interest among the general public in the campaigning activities of third parties, other than in the immediate period, is very limited. Indeed, you could argue that, if you are doing it, you are probably wasting your money.
So what should then be an alternative period to 12 months? Well, we are exceptionally lucky because we have some real-life examples of alternative periods. The regulated period for the devolved legislatures is four months. My noble friend will no doubt say, “Well, that’s devolved Administrations. It isn’t the same as a national event”. But the regulated period for European elections, when they were held, was also four months, and they were national elections. It is not clear to me why a UK general election should have a regulated period that is three times as long as those required in Scotland and Wales, particularly as I have found no evidence of third-party campaigning abuse in elections in those devolved Administrations with only a four-month regulated period.
That takes me to Amendment 39 first—the other one that I am speaking to—which, quite simply, reduces the regulated period from 365 days, or one year, to 120 days, or four months. In one stroke, the bureaucratic burden on third-party campaigners is reduced, without any reduction in effective regulation, in my view.
But, in the spirit of constructive ingratiation that every Back-Bencher should adopt when he is seeking that the Government follow his point of view, I have also tabled Amendment 33A, which takes a different approach, although it has the same objective of clarifying the position of those third-party campaigners. Proposed Section 89A in Clause 24, on exemptions from restrictions, says:
“No amount of controlled expenditure may be incurred by or on behalf of a third party during a regulated period unless the third party”—
after which my amendment would insert the words
“could not reasonably be expected to have known they were campaigning within a regulated period”.
In other words, you give them a general bye because they could not have known.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, in his amendments. I am acting as a kind of understudy for my noble friend Lord Blunkett, but I cannot say that what I shall say would be his lines, but in his absence, at least there is a Labour Back-Bencher speaking in favour of the amendments.
I should perhaps first declare my interest as vice-chair of Compass, which is a left-of-centre campaigning organisation that has been promoting a progressive alliance for some years, and as honorary president of the Child Poverty Action Group. I worked for CPAG for many years and, during that time, worked on trying to get child poverty raised as an issue in many general elections.
The question of the 365-day limit was raised in the Public Bill Committee: why is it so long? I think the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, made a strong case for it being too long. When questioned, the Minister in the Commons had three arguments. The first was that we all have a fairly good idea of when an election will be. Do we? There is already speculation that there could be an election next year. Indeed, those who have been lobbying about the Bill, sometimes groups in combination, could find that they are in the regulated period already. We simply do not know, now that we are outside fixed-term Parliaments. A prudent organisation would need to start taking steps very soon not to get caught out.
Secondly, the Minister argued that, in effect, we are all in it together: we all have the same amount of information, so it does not matter. I will not be affected by this legislation, but the kind of organisation that I am associated with could well be.
Thirdly, and most worryingly, the Minister said:
“People will need to take that into account when they are campaigning politically.”—[Official Report, Commons, Elections Bill Committee, 26/10/21; col. 314.]
Well, exactly. That is the problem: what is often called the chilling effect will take effect. If organisations involved in campaigning take account politically, that could stop them campaigning for large periods of the electoral cycle. That cannot be right. The noble Lord made helpful distinctions. Looking back, when I was at CPAG, there would have been big periods when we could not try to make child poverty an issue because we would have been caught by this legislation.
Perhaps the Minister will have stronger arguments for why 365 days is appropriate, but certainly the arguments put in the Commons were either weak or worrying. I am not clear why we need any retrospective regulated period. Why can it not just start when the election is called? However, in the spirit of compromise, I am happy to support one or other of these amendments and am very interested to hear what the Minister has to say about them.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the scars are still on my back from having taken the transparency of lobbying Bill, now an Act, through this House. I remind the Minister that we paused it when we ran into waves of criticism from all sides and arguments that we had not entirely got our own arguments in line. It was not quite as messy as this Bill, but we did at least manage to sort out something which did not displease everyone too much.
I have read the very useful report by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, which I compliment him on. It does its best to strike the balance between a number of very difficult and different priorities. All of us who have been involved in politics know that there are many civil society organisations. Some are easily politically neutral—as the Church is, most of the time—while others are inherently a bit on the right. Those of us who are old enough to have fought campaigns that the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children was active in will remember how vigorous, to say the least, it could be in its campaigns and how biased it was. Development NGOs and poverty NGOs, being in favour of greater public sector spending and greater equality, tend naturally to be more on the left. The balance between advocacy and electoral campaigning, as the noble Lord has said, is a difficult one, which we must all strike. In debating this issue with some of the organisations concerned, there were those who felt that they were entitled to campaign entirely as they liked because they were morally right and therefore should not in any sense be controlled in an election campaign.
I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that 120 days is much better than 365 days. We no longer know when the election will be. It is one of the many bits of incoherence of this Government that putting through the abolition of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act in the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill has not sorted out entirely the knock-on effects of that for this Bill. If I recall correctly, in his report, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said that looking back on how various NGOs and civil society groups have spent on their advocacy and campaigning, the spending does come very much in the last few weeks and months before the election, rather than being spread evenly over the previous year.
Therefore, I strongly support Amendment 39 and hope that the Minister will accept that this is a reasonable adjustment in the Bill which the Government could accept, and which makes life simpler for those civil society groups which we all want to see engaging in campaigns and public debate. This tidying up would be a help to all concerned.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for introducing these amendments at this stage. I know that we will have further debates but, like him, I think it is really important to set this in context. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Lister for doing so. She has an incredible record of promoting civil society and action groups focused on particular issues. I know from my own experience that civil society activity is really important; one of the most important groups I have participated in is one that my party, the Conservative Party and other political parties were a bit uncomfortable dealing with—LGBT rights. It took a civil society, cross-party campaign to change things and influence manifestos.
I said at Second Reading that a thriving democracy is not limited to Parliaments and parliamentarians. Countries that fail to protect their citizens force civil society to stand up for them and defend human rights. That is really important. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and my noble friend, who was more explicit, talked about that chilling effect. That is what we must look at. Perhaps it is even an unintended consequence. However, it is a simple fact that we do not know the date of the general election; it is in the gift of the Prime Minister to set, and sometimes it can be a long campaign and sometimes it can be short. We do not want those civil society organisations campaigning throughout a five-year period, raising issues such as child poverty, to stand back because they fear that they might be caught in this regulated period.
I agree with my noble friend that the simplest solution is to say that the regulated period should start when a general election officially starts, but I will compromise with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, on four months. Importantly, in some of his later amendments we will come to issues such as defining what might reasonably be regarded as campaigning, which he rightly raised. I agree about a code of practice being brought before Parliament.
Even if the Minister cannot accept these amendments today—I have no doubt that he cannot—I hope he will take away that this will have an impact on civil society that will impact negatively on our democratic activity. I hope the Government will listen to both the noble Lord and my noble friend Lady Lister.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I fear I cannot be as accommodating with these amendments as with some earlier ones on which I invited further discussion. However, I say to my noble friend Lord Hodgson that there are parts later in the Bill where I hope we may be able to have fruitful conversations. However, those are for a future day.
I accept that there is a balance to be struck in these matters, but starting, illogically, with my noble friend’s Amendment 39—I suppose that is the upside-down, Whitehall way of looking at things—on reducing the length of the regulated period, I am sure many would agree that any campaigning up to 12 months before a parliamentary general election could have a significant influence on its outcome. This is not a new principle, nor has it come in since the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. The principle of 12-month regulatory periods has been in place for over 20 years, in which period civil society groups, including the group the noble Lord, Lord Collins, referred to—I nearly called him my noble friend—have been able to be very effective and move mountains within the electoral system.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
The Minister referred to the established 12-month period. I was not aware of it as an established principle. Perhaps now or in a letter, the Minister will tell us when it was established, how long it has been in effect and how it has been tried and tested, since he is so good at telling us that.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I will stand corrected if it is not the case, but the principle of a 12-month regulatory period has been in place for more than 20 years. That is the advice I have and if I am wrong, I will gladly correct that; no doubt my noble friend behind me will correct me very fast.
The closely related Amendment 33A seeks to create an exemption from expenditure rules for third-party exempt campaigners where they could not reasonably be expected to be aware that they were campaigning during a regulated election period. One understands the arguments that were put, but regulated periods have been in place for years. Third parties engaging in election campaigning should be aware of the rules and of the existence of regulated periods. However, the Electoral Commission has produced extensive guidance to help third parties understand the rules. It states:
“Most campaign activity undertaken before an election is announced is unlikely to meet the purpose test”.
It is an important test that is specifically intended to protect civil society, because
“you are unlikely to be reasonably regarded as intending to influence people to vote in an election when you do not know or expect that the election is happening.”
I have heard arguments around the corner of that, but the basic principle of the purpose test is there, and therefore the Government do not accept the idea that regulated periods for third parties are overly burdensome. It is important that spending is regulated and transparent and it is right that spending that promotes a political party in the lead-up to an election is regulated, whether that is undertaken by the party itself or by a third-party campaigner. Therefore, with great respect, I fear that I cannot accept my noble friend’s amendment and ask him to withdraw it.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
I thank noble Lords who have participated in this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, and I can disagree violently, have done and will no doubt do so again in the future, but sometimes we can agree violently, and I am glad that tonight is one of the evenings when we do. I thank her for coming along at 9.20 pm to lend her support. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, is quite right to remind us that third-party campaigners can be self-regarding and feel that they are by definition good. They are not all good, and we always need to bear that in mind. As I have said before, they are not populated entirely by angels. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, made a point about inadvertently catching people who are trying to do their best, but it all goes wrong.
I would not be happy about linking this to the calling of a general election. Some general elections come out of blue, but usually there is a period of electoral tension building up, and that is when efforts that would be part of electoral campaigning mode could be made. Not always, but most of the time, elections build up a bit and you know a month or two beforehand that something is likely to happen. That is why I think that four months is the right period.
However, my noble friend is not going to accept these proposals. He is entirely right to say that the Electoral Commission has worked hard on guidance. This takes us back to the old question of whether the guidance will hold true when something goes wrong—but the commission has tried very hard and I want to put that on the record.
As far as the period is concerned, 2014 made it the law; before that, it was practice. I, too, stand to be corrected. It had been understood that a year was about the time we should be keeping an eye open but, from the 2014 Act, it was the law. I can only say that “What we have, we hold” is not always a good answer. I do not think that it is a good answer here but, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement relating to the amendment in Lord True’s name at page 33, line 26.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would probe the decision to limit expenses at £700.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, a couple of the amendments in this group relate to Clause 24, and then one moves on to Clause 25. Amendment 35 in my name is specifically an amendment to Clause 24. I should say at this stage that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, has given notice of his intention to oppose the Question that Clause 24 stand part of the Bill. We have had quite a wide debate around Clause 24 during our debates on earlier groups, so I do not intend to go into any of the detail on it. The Committee and the Minister are clear about our concerns, so I will leave the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, to go into more detail when he speaks on the reasons why he wishes to oppose the Question.
In many ways, Amendment 35 is similar to earlier amendments of mine that we discussed in previous groups, which probed how certain figures had been reached in the Bill. This one is particularly about the decision to limit expenses to £700. I had a look at the Explanatory Notes to this section of the Bill. They say:
“Third-party campaigner controlled expenditure is only regulated during a regulated period. The offence under new section 89A(4) or (5) will only apply during a regulated period. New section 89A(2) outlines that 89A(1) will not apply to third-party campaigners spending below £700”.
I hope noble Lords will bear with me; I am going to put my specs on to be certain that I am reading this correctly. The Notes say that
“this mirrors section 75(1ZZB)(a) and (1ZA) of the RPA 1983.”
My first thought was, “Aha, perhaps that’s where the figure of £700 comes from”. However, Section 75ZA of the RPA says:
“The returning officer or the Electoral Commission may, at any time during the period of 6 months beginning with the date of the poll at a parliamentary election, request a relevant person to deliver to the officer or Commission a return of permitted expenditure in relation to a candidate at the election who is specified in the request.”
It goes on to clarify:
“‘Return of permitted expenditure’ means a return—(a) showing all permitted expenses incurred by the person in relation to the candidate, or (b) stating that the person incurred no such expenses or that the total such expenses incurred by the person was £200 or less.”
I may have missed further amendments to this, but I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that I have read that correctly.
I also looked at Section 75(1ZZB) but could not find a reference to a figure there, either. However, it did provide a link to the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014. I sympathised with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, when he said he still has the scars on his back from that Bill; I am rather glad I was not here at that stage. I took a look at that, but again I could not find a spending amount specified.
The Minister and noble Lords may be beginning to think that I do not get out enough, but I like to try to understand what is being presented to me. Therefore, I would be grateful to the Minister if he could shed any light on how the amount of £700 was reached. Perhaps I am just looking in the wrong place.
Amendment 45A sits within Clause 25. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has given notice of his intention to oppose Clause 25, and I have added my name. Amendment 45A would require the Secretary of State to
“consult the Electoral Commission before making an order under subsection (9)(a).”
As the Explanatory Notes clearly say:
“Clause 25 makes provision for the amendment of the list of eligible categories of third-party campaigners in section 88(2) of PPERA 2000. This allows for the ability to add, remove or amend categories of third-party campaigners from the list in section 88(2). This will allow for any new categories to be added to or removed from the list should that be necessary. Any change would have an impact on who is permitted to incur controlled expenditure during regulated periods under new section 89A.”
We will discuss Clause 25 in greater detail when we come back next week. That is the time to have the big debate on this. Time is getting on—it is nearly 9.30 pm—so I do not intend to go into a lot of detail on Clause 25 at the moment.
Our concerns reflect those of trade unions, charities and other third-party organisations, mainly around the fact that the effect of bringing together Clauses 24 and 25 would be to allow the Secretary of State by statutory instrument to add, remove or define permitted participants in election campaigning and effectively to prevent categories of organisation spending more than £700 on election campaigning in the 12 months leading up to a general election.
I have spoken to a number of charities recently. They have said to me that they can perfectly properly campaign on political issues in support of their charitable aims, including during elections. The activity is already appropriately regulated, including by the Charity Commission. They cannot pursue their charitable aims solely through political campaigning, nor support or oppose a political party or candidate. This comes back to some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, made previously. In many ways they exist for public benefit. They are engaged in campaigning to further their charitable purposes and support policies that achieve them—not for a specific political party. Their expert and independent voice is an important aspect of a well-functioning democracy and is vital in raising awareness, educating the public and scrutinising policy-making.
We know that registering with the Electoral Commission as a third-party campaigner is necessary to be able to spend above certain limits on election-related campaigning. For example, many animal welfare groups want to promote animal welfare as an electoral issue or highlight the different views of parties and candidates. This is perfectly acceptable within an election campaign, but the broad power that these two clauses bring together has the effect of potentially allowing the Government to prevent charities, or any other category of campaigner, registering as a third-party campaigner.
The amendment in this group we are considering in relation to this specifically looks at new subsection (9)(c), which gives the Secretary of State the ability to vary
“the description of a third party”
in the list. We are asking that:
“The Secretary of State must consult the Electoral Commission”
before he is able to make an order under this subsection.
Under Clause 58, regarding information to be included with the electronic material, the Government are able to make regulations under the powers in Part 6 of the Bill only following a recommendation from the Electoral Commission or consultation with it. My question to the Minister is: why are the Government happy to put in the Bill consultation with the Electoral Commission in that section, on electronic materials, but not in this section, regarding the ability of the Secretary of State to amend the list of recognised third parties, which could have far more serious consequences?
As I said, we will have a wider debate next week on Clause 25. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, at this late stage, I want to thank the noble Baroness for her introduction. I do not intend to repeat many of the points that she put forward, which were entirely valid.
The history of legislation in this area over the past 20 years is of fundamentally confused aims which are compounded over time and, particularly these days, are exaggerated by new forms of digital campaigning. It becomes increasingly difficult to achieve the stated aims of the legislation, which is to understand who exactly is undertaking campaigning, how they are doing it and where their funding is coming from. Until such time as we sort out some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, directed us towards, about what legitimate advocacy is and what party-political campaigning is, we will never sort this out entirely.
At every stage of this legislation, we have to ask what problem it is supposed to be answering. Do you know what? It is never very clear. That is a fundamental problem. My understanding of Clauses 24 and 25 is that they try to limit third-party campaigning to specific UK-based bodies and therefore to stop foreign interference. I am not entirely sure about that. As somebody who spent an awful lot of time in the charity world, I look very carefully at the description of entities. The Explanatory Note for Clause 24 states that it
“inserts new section 89A(1) of PPERA, which will prevent any third party from incurring controlled expenditure (including notional expenditure) during a regulated period, unless it is either eligible to register under section 88(2) of PPERA or an unincorporated association with the requisite UK connection”.
Does “unincorporated association” mean a charitable entity? What does “requisite UK connection” mean? Does it mean registered as a charity in the United Kingdom or not? As the noble Baroness said, under Clause 25, the Electoral Commission has something that we might welcome; that is, an ability to stop whole classes of organisations or entities registering, but, at the moment, we do not know what they are or what they might be. If we did, we might agree, but there is something about the way in which this is all written that is unclear.
That leads us on to the key problem that that creates, which is how the Electoral Commission or the police will enforce this, particularly if it is entities of an uncertain nature outside the United Kingdom. It sets up yet another problem. I would therefore welcome it if the Minister could unpick all that and explain to us precisely what is going on here and what it is that we are trying to sort out.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, very generously attributed to us two items of business on this string that were actually submitted primarily by her colleague, the noble Lord, Lord, Collins—that is Amendment 45A—and herself in respect of opposing the Question on Clause 24. I refer to page 8 and 9 of the second Marshalled List of amendments to support the validity of the counterclaim I am making.
The intention to oppose the question of Clause 24 was tabled in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Meacher, who is in her place and may well want to speak to that proposition. All I wanted to say at this stage is that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has opened up the big questions that lurk in relation to Clause 25. We will very certainly and definitely want to return to that, and we have stated our intention to oppose the Question that Clause 25 stand part of the Bill. But that is clearly not part of this string, and I think we will be resuming discussion on that at another time.
My noble friend Lady Barker has quite rightly pointed at the fog that surrounds the intended purpose of Clauses 24 and 25, and the lack of what I would describe as a credible justification for the alterations proposed in these two clauses, particularly in relation to Clause 24, seeing as that is the one that is in front of us at the moment. My noble friend Lady Barker pointed out some of the questions that arise from that. My understanding—maybe the Minister in replying could confirm it—is that an unincorporated association would, for instance, include an organisation which I believe is called the West Midlands Industrialists, which channels funds directly to the Conservative Party—entirely legitimately; I am not suggesting anything different. An unincorporated association could be a trade association, formal or informal; it could be some kind of NGO; it could just be an informal grouping that has got its constitution together. It is an entirely separate issue whether they are legitimate bodies to be funding elections—but the law as it stands says that that is legitimate. Except insofar as deleting Clause 24 might form part of the agenda for the rest of this evening, there is no proposal before us to change that. But I think we should perhaps ask the Minister if he or she can rehearse the unincorporated associations question, so we can understand, perhaps a bit more fully, what we will in essence eventually finish up this evening by nodding through. With that, I defer to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who I am sure will want to speak on Clause 24.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support the proposal on Clause 24 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, to which I added my name. I think most of the points that need to be made have been made very well. I have some sympathy with the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson; I think four months is a great improvement on a year as a bar on campaigning that might possibly be understood to be electioneering by small voluntary organisations—a very great improvement, actually. The real thing is whether we need this at all. I am very conscious that Clause 24 actually creates an offence. A small, rather vulnerable voluntary organisation could be setting out why its cause is so important and subsequently find it has done this within an election year; and it may be fined, I suppose, for this breach and for committing an offence.
So many bits of this Bill seem contrary to the whole essence of our democracy. Civil society contributes so very much to our political life through its work drawing attention to vulnerable groups and so on. I worked with the Child Poverty Action Group, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I was there for some years. When you are trying to draw to the attention of political parties just what really poor people are going through, how on earth could you be committing an offence if someone later calls an election?
I have a lot of worries about Clause 24, particularly because it creates that offence. It is a bit strange to me that Clause 24 stand part and Clause 25 stand part have been split because a lot of my concerns about Clause 24 are in fact deep in Clause 25—so much is left to regulations and Ministers can determine all sorts of things in relation to this provision. We will get on to that next time. I think that Clause 25 compounds the worries about Clause 24; I hope very much that the Minister will take this seriously and that the clause ultimately will not stand part.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak in support of the probing Amendment 35 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. We have to ask what my noble friend asked. What is this trying to solve? In the regulated period of one year and at a figure of £700, we are saying that an organisation that spends £1.91 a day for 12 months before a general election could be committing an offence. That is the amount that would have to be spent per day by the organisation or £13.46 a week or £58.33 a month. The very simple question I would like to ask the Minister is: how was that daily amount of £1.91 calculated? Why is it deemed to be illegal if an organisation exceeds that amount and exactly what problem does it solve?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, may I ask the Minister a question? I do not entirely understand this clause and the unincorporated association element is the least clear to me. I googled “unincorporated association” this morning and came away more confused than when I started. I think we would all be very grateful if the Minister’s office could circulate a letter explaining why this is there, what sort of organisations they have in mind, whether there is a history or problems with unincorporated associations and, if so, what they were, so that we have some idea of why this is necessary. I get a sense from others who have spoken that we are puzzled by where this clause is coming from, why it is there and what it is intended to do.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have to confess that I irritate my wonderful team in the Box when I say—and this of course plays straight into the attack—why is this not a consolidation Act? Of course, in the great scheme of things, consolidation Acts on all sorts of things would be wonderful. As I have said, this is intended to be a reforming Act dealing with some matters which are relatively urgent, but I agree that the way that it operates is relatively opaque and I understand why noble Lords have asked these questions.
Like others, I am not going to stray into Clause 25, although I realise there is an interrelation between the two. I know from the engagement I have had with colleagues on all Benches that Clause 25 is an issue which the House wants to consider in some detail, and I am fully ready for that. If the House will forgive me, I will not go into that except in so far as it deals with this matter.
Clause 24 is intended to do something that we would all like to do, which is to ensure that campaign spending comes only from UK-based or otherwise eligible sources. The clause is intended to address some of the concerns raised by the DCMS Select Committee in the other place in a 2019 report on disinformation—so-called fake news and foreign interference in UK elections.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I am sorry to be obtuse. I do not entirely understand Clause 24(7), which defines the requisite UK connection of an unincorporated association. I think I understand it as meaning that there must be at least two people associated with it who, while they and anyone else in the unincorporated association may be living overseas, are at least on the register. Is it therefore envisaged that we will have more unincorporated associations which are based overseas but campaigning in Britain?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, it is required to have a UK connection. I will write to noble Lords to explain that clearly. In the two days that I have been listening in Committee, your Lordships have rightly—sometimes gently, sometimes aggressively—asked the Government to deal with foreign intervention. That is what this clause is intended to bear down on. We can have further discussion on the meaning of subsection (7) and I will undertake to write on that but I hope that, with those assurances—
Baroness Meacher (CB)
I apologise for intervening at this time of night, but it would be so helpful if the Minister could be absolutely clear. My understanding is that charities are all on a list and can campaign; that is fine. Can he confirm, to me anyway and perhaps to the House, that UK-based organisations that are not necessarily charities but nevertheless promote all sorts of interests will not be covered by this offence and by these regulations?
Lord True (Con)
Again, to help the House, I will write to clarify that. The clause refers to the bodies which the clause applies to—sorry, that sounds very circuitous. A third party that falls within any paragraph of Section 88(2) of PPERA is exempt from the provision. I will make that clear in more correct legal language, but that is how I understand it as a lay person. I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness absolutely on that. I will check it with my officials tomorrow. I hope that, leaving aside whatever questions there may still be about Clause 25, your Lordships will accept that Clause 24, however imperfect, should not be excised from the Bill.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, on the £700 limit, have the Government done any assessment of how many UK-based organisations that spend between £700 and the existing amount of £20,000 will be affected by the potential change in this legislation?
Lord True (Con)
The change refers to foreign or otherwise ineligible third-party campaigners. I do not know how many foreign organisations there might be that might want to be caught, but if I had such information, I would gladly share it with the noble Lord. As I have said—if I could just complete the explanation—the Section 88(2) organisations are not caught by this provision.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Organisations which at the moment spend below £20,000, which will now go down to £700, will be affected. My question is: how many UK-based organisations that will spend between £700 and £20,000 will be affected by the change? I accept what the Minister says vis-à-vis foreign interference, but there will be organisations in the UK that spend between £700 and £20,000 within the 365-day period that will be affected by this, that are not registered. How many organisations have the Government assessed will be affected?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, there are other provisions in the Bill in relation to lower-tier and upper-tier spending, and in relation to the £10,000 and the £20,000. It is not specifically related to these provisions. I repeat my undertaking to the noble Lord that I will try to give him the advice he is asking for. Whether my officials, or the Electoral Commission, have a full list I cannot tell him at this hour. I understand that he might be concerned, but I urge noble Lords to understand that this clause is intended to apply to foreign entities.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his response to these amendments and other noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for forgetting to say that her name was with mine on the notice of our intention to oppose Clause 24 standing part of the Bill, and I thank her for her contribution.
The debate has raised some important issues that we will come back to, not just next week but further on in the debate. The Minister explained that Clause 24 is intended to bear down on foreign interests, and that only people with legitimate interests to influence UK elections should be able to contribute. I do not imagine that anyone would disagree with that aim, but there are still concerns about it. I am sure that we will revisit issues around foreign donations when we reach the clauses on overseas electors.
Regarding my inability to find the £700 in the RPA, if the Minister has a moment, or if one of his officials could send me the link so that I can see it with my own eyes, that would be marvellous. One concern here is the effect of the combination of Clauses 24 and 25 together; there is a bigger concern around that. I am sure we will revisit these concerns about Clauses 24 and 25, because they are so interconnected. I am sure that other noble Lords, as well as myself, would very much welcome further discussion with the Minister on this area, because there are very genuine concerns, particularly among a number of other organisations, including charities. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
““reserved regulated period” means a period in relation to which any limit is imposed by paragraph 3, 7, 9, 10 or 11 of Schedule 10 (periods involving parliamentary general elections or general elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly).”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement relating to the amendment in Lord True’s name at page 33, line 26.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement relating to the amendment in Lord True’s name at page 33, line 26.
“(4) In subsection (3), “reserved regulated period” means a period in relation to which any limit is imposed by paragraph 3, 7, 9, 10 or 11 of Schedule 10 to PPERA (periods involving parliamentary general elections or general elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly).”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement relating to the amendment in Lord True’s name at page 33, line 26.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment limits the order-making power conferred by the inserted subsection (9) for section 88 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 so that the power can be exercised only for the purposes of periods involving parliamentary general elections or general elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly.